# Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?



## El_Mayo (Aug 5, 2011)

I've got to write an article for Media coursework and this is the topic I've chosen to write about
I aim to cover "the glory days"(?) of PC gaming, and myths surrounding PC gaming that other people/console players have about the system that puts them off it etc. etc.

I just want other people's opinions on the subject, so I have some opinions to write about etc. 

p.s. I really hope people don't start arguing on this thread


----------



## JC316 (Aug 5, 2011)

Money, pure and simple. More console gamers out there, thus the devs cater to them. Also doesn't help that the consoles caught up to PC's in the graphics department. In the glory days, the SNES was still going strong, with the PS1 and N64 just starting to introduce 3d. At that time, you had games like Doom, Duke 3d and Daggerfall. The SNES just couldn't keep up. Then when the N64 and PS1 hit stride in 98, PC gamers had stuff like Half Life.


----------



## CJCerny (Aug 5, 2011)

I suspect the real reason that console gaming has eclipsed PC gaming is that modern consoles added all the features that only PC gaming used to have, like Internet multiplayer, and they've also added home theater/multimedia playback capabilities that older consoles didn't have. So, it's functionality for the $$$ that has the PC sitting in distant second to the consoles.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 5, 2011)

I honestly think its bigger... its just not the most publicized or even realized due to the social acceptableness and ease of use of consoles.. but the term PC gamer or someone who plays a game on the pc is a title that I'd bet is 2 to 3x the size of console gamers. You gotta realize, farmville, solitaire, etc.. are all pc games. Many times they serve as entry level games into the more renound pc market, but they are pc games none the less.


----------



## Hotobu (Aug 5, 2011)

Don't forget about piracy. There's console piracy, but it's much more difficult than it once was on PC "can I borrow your disk? lol". Many devs abandoned the PC market because of it. Even now it's still easier to pirate PC games than console games.

Then there's the buy it and forget ease of consoles. When you buy a console you know you're going to get the best out of that hardware for 4-6 years. With a PC you'll probably want to update your graphics card at least every 2 years to keep current, and even then there's always the nagging enthusiast bug of... well... this is good, but I can do better.

Then there's the "snowball effect" once consoles really started to get big you knew if your friend had the same console as you playing together was as easy as taking over your game and controller. With a computer if his machine can't run what you've got or vice versa you're SOL. Even at that I could easily put my Sega Genesis, Playstation, or whatever into my backpack. With a computer it isn't as easy.

Finally there's the TV vs. monitor issue. Simply hook your console up to your TV and go. Even a 24"+ TV made for a better experience than a (most likely) 17" monitor. Sure the computer may have been the more powerful machine, but computers weren't as integrated into people's lives as they are today. A 17" monitor at a desk just doesn't offer the same experience as a larger television in an entertainment center. Furthermore "the family computer" model was way more common then than now. Mom and dad wouldn't want the kids gunking up the computer with games or whatever. Now it's far more common for a kid to have his own computer than it was in the past. Which feeds into the "group experience" aspect of consoles. Playing a game wherever the "family computer" was just isn't the same as playing in your buddies' bedroom.

edit: more stuff

Also people weren't as "computer savvy" a decade ago as they are today. People building their own computers and buying parts (and even upgrading them) wasn't as common then as it is now. Computer gaming suffered because of this because it was beyond many people's comprehension. 

There was also the stigma of computer gaming being for nerds, and consoles being for kids. Of course those kids are now us, but we helped the console boom and it's since eclipsed PC gaming.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 5, 2011)

Well, you are certainly seeing a darth of AAA titles out there, because as countless before me have pointed out it does not make as much money as consoles anymore. However, people have forgotten that PC has and will always be at the forefront of innovation for the better or worse. We have lots of indie games, and also the infamous Farmvilles and things like that. Sure consoles can have all the AAA titles and such, but they can never have the variety nor the depth of games we get. And games don't age as well in consoles as PC games, eg Starcraft (2), Warcraft 3, Quake, Halo, Neverwinter Nights. PC gaming does not make the headlines anymore does not mean that its meeting its demise, its just taking the back seat. I do not see PC as becoming "THE" console of the future, but it will always be there, quietly existing.


----------



## El_Mayo (Aug 5, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> I honestly think its bigger... its just not the most publicized or even realized due to the social acceptableness and ease of use of consoles.. but the term PC gamer or someone who plays a game on the pc is a title that I'd bet is 2 to 3x the size of console gamers. You gotta realize, farmville, solitaire, etc.. are all pc games. Many times they serve as entry level games into the more renound pc market, but they are pc games none the less.



That's an interesting point man 
Loads of people who aren't necessary 'gamers' play WoW or Second Life etc. etc.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 5, 2011)

Because consoles are simple, I was asked by a 30 year old woman how to plug in a xbox... If she doesn't understand the concept of match the colors, she wouldn't know how to plug in a screen.


----------



## gottistar (Aug 5, 2011)

..........."us" PC , modders, gamers.....

Our computers  are more of a hobby to us , (oh and we play some games on them as well )...... then there are other people who like just to chuck a game in and play (console) , (boring)....

I doudt it very much that the "glory" days are over...have a look and 2 of the biggest titles (just to name 2) that will NEVER be on console and have farrrrrrr more of a fanbase then ANY other console game....WOW and BF3......and yes im aware BF3 will be on console, enjoy your crappy 42 player BTW.....

PC gaming is bigger then ever.....viva la PC GAMER


----------



## garyinhere (Aug 5, 2011)

Consoles are bigger because they are convenient. This IMO started with PS2 making it double as a Dvd player and PS3 as a blue ray. When PS3 came out you could buy a good Blu ray for $300+ or a PS3 for the same plus play games + get on the internet. So really it is all just convenient. I'd rather pay for an all in one system then shell out blank dollars for a blu ray disc drive, blank amount for graphics card, blank amount for sound card, blank amount for surround sound, ect... How much does your Comp system cost compared to a console. Does your console get tearing. Blu rays play at 24fps so who cares if a VGA will push 60+ FPS?

Just think what will happen to the PC gaming industry when Steam makes it convenient to purchase games on line via console lol... especially since it seems the trend is going away from physical media?!??!


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 5, 2011)

As mentioned, I think consoles are the biggest money maker for their ease of use, PC-grade hardware (but older) and the "big screen experience."

Most normal people just want to plug in something and have it work. With consoles, your games are pretty much guaranteed to work every time, and there's no fuss about "upgrading your console" or "buying the right components." Most normal people likely also invest a lot more money into home entertainment (TVs and home theater systems) but buy the cheapest PC off the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart. And, the experience only varies on how good your TV is, instead of the extreme performance variations experience with PCs (tons of hardware, drivers, crapware, etc.).


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 5, 2011)

lack of good games and the shitty DRM.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 5, 2011)

remixedcat said:


> lack of good games and the shitty DRM.



Plenty out there, you just have to dig a bit deeper into the indie pile.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 5, 2011)

The simplicity and marketing Consoles have is a huge advantage, if most people just want to play games they just watch to pop in the disc and go. This alone makes those platform more appealing to developers because more people using=more money in it.

PC gaming tends to be more complicated, because there is no standard set of hardware, it both limits and enhances the experience. It limits because since not everyone is on the same playing field hardware wise, the experience changes and since the majority aren't into PC hardware they won't drop any cash on it. But it enhances by making it a much more flexible platform since there is no hardware standard, the quality shoots up, as there isn't much of a limit to stop them from making beautiful and creative games. 

People see computers as a chore they don't want to deal with, and Consoles solve that problem. PC is more for us that actually care about the insides of our systems.(i personally enjoy both platforms though)


----------



## IlluminAce (Aug 6, 2011)

Market share - consoles. Money - consoles. Standardisation - consoles. Supportability - consoles. Internet connectivity - both.

The only serious advantage I can think of that PCs have over consoles is graphics quality, but very few games are getting built with DX11 because the £$ is in the console market (see above), and consoles don't yet support DX11. Many PC games these days are just console ports.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2011)

IlluminAce said:


> Market share - consoles. Money - consoles. Standardisation - consoles. Supportability - consoles. Internet connectivity - both.
> 
> The only serious advantage I can think of that PCs have over consoles is graphics quality, but very few games are getting built with DX11 because the £$ is in the console market (see above), and consoles don't yet support DX11. Many PC games these days are just console ports.



Community - PC, Support - PC, Graphics -PC, Sound -PC, FPS Control (most AAA titles) - PC, Price per game - PC.

Why are consoles more popular? Because people as a whole are stupid.


Thread.


----------



## seronx (Aug 6, 2011)

If people want PC quality.... just by an onlive console

It's only $99 and after that payment just pay $9.99 a month

http://www.onlive.com/#1


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Community - PC, Support - PC, Graphics -PC, Sound -PC, FPS Control (most AAA titles) - PC, Price per game - PC.
> 
> Why are consoles more popular? Because people as a whole are stupid.
> 
> ...



xcept it costs a thousand bucks and takes alot of knowledge and patience to get a decent gaming rig... thats just to get it... then you have to know about drivers, tweaking, tuning and deal with the occasional weird glitch/conflict.

and $250 for a console.


----------



## seronx (Aug 6, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> xcept it costs a thousand bucks and takes alot of knowledge and patience to get a decent gaming rig... thats just to get it... then you have to know about drivers, tweaking, tuning and deal with the occasional weird glitch/conflict.
> 
> and $250 for a console.



Well actually you only need to buy a $100 box....and pay $10 a month get 75+ games



And boom, no need for a gaming system


----------



## Hotobu (Aug 6, 2011)

I figured this would happen. The overzealous PC fanboys come along and instead of *commenting on what the thread asks* they have to start defending PC gaming.

Protip: This thread is about what people are doing, not what you think they should be doing.

(...couldn't even get off page 1)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2011)

Hotobu said:


> I figured this would happen. The overzealous PC fanboys come along and instead of *commenting on what the thread asks* they have to start defending PC gaming.
> 
> Protip: This thread is about what people are doing, not what you think they should be doing.
> 
> (...couldn't even get off page 1)



There is nothing to defend. PC gaming is as big if not bigger then it ever was....and as ALWAYS its superior to console gaming in anyway imaginable.


----------



## BrooksyX (Aug 6, 2011)

For me personally I got bored of PC gaming 3 or 4 years back and became a Xbox 360 gamer. But I got bored of the consoles and am back into PC gaming. Most of that is thanks to Starcraft II but I like other games as well.


----------



## 20mmrain (Aug 6, 2011)

JC316 said:


> Money, pure and simple. More console gamers out there, thus the devs cater to them. Also doesn't help that the consoles caught up to PC's in the graphics department. In the glory days, the SNES was still going strong, with the PS1 and N64 just starting to introduce 3d. At that time, you had games like Doom, Duke 3d and Daggerfall. The SNES just couldn't keep up. Then when the N64 and PS1 hit stride in 98, PC gamers had stuff like Half Life.



I disagree. that Console has caught up to PC's. Sure for awhile they did consoles do that all the time. First PC will be better. Then Consoles will catch up. Then PC's get even better. Then consoles come out with their new stuff and catch up.

Right now PC is way further ahead than consoles. With HD gaming.... and DX 11 / Tessellation .... and so on. Games like Metro 2033, Crysis, and BF2BC and soon BF3 destroy console games in the graphics department. 

But what I think the real reason is.... that when we get older we have less money to buy things like $800 dollar video cards and the like. It is harder to keep up with the latest technology. We start going to college.... have families.... and so on. Honestly... I think why we start playing PC games less and move over to consoles is more of money issue because life happens. Rather then anything else.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 6, 2011)

Its just the times we live in and the trends, you look at tv and you see ads for games they're usually console games because thats where the money is, and the people influenced are usually younger even though most of the games are rated not for them, you rarely see a game on tv and see PC and actually care now because its simply not a good business decision for the publishers unless its a AAA title.

I haven't even cared about buying a video card myself since like last year, its just not worth it until something changes where I have more than 5 games that can fully utilize my current one, its not worth it.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

No, it's because consoles are easy. People are stupid and they don't want to learn about this stuff, and they don't want to have to learn how to build their own pc. That's why I hate pre built pcs that are now coming with gaming graphics cards, or 6 core procs. I liked Pc gaming when it was smaller and was more adult, or mature. The reason I hate consoles is because of how immature the people on there are. They call you names and noob tube or do what ever they can do to be annoying. On pc they want to help, and are nice. To be honest the best times for pc gaming was like 6 years ago when I was using my Nf7-s playing halo 2, talking with people on there about our favorite maps.


----------



## phobias23 (Aug 6, 2011)

Console or PC.. Ive played both.
From my point of view Pc gaming is more alike for people who love PC and the emotion of assembling your own rig .

Normal people prefer to buy a laptop or just a cell to use facebook, is almost the same here.
Lots of gamers or should I say new called gamers, bought a xbox360 or PS3 3/4 years ago and dont have any worry about getting a new videocard or Cpu etc... They have internet connection, no need of OS. buy the game and everything is solved.
This has helped that GOOD EPIC GAMES are no LONGER produced frecuently.

I enjoy fight games in consoles is more easier and fun but,

Shooters Games are made for PC, RPG G. are made for PC, Adventure G. are made for PC.

You can stop a creator imagination due to a forced release for console.
Good Games are made of dreams. PC is where those dreams can be realized.
I cant change my mouse and keyboard in a shooter game for a joystick, no way.
Console>
PC>


----------



## gottistar (Aug 6, 2011)

Hotobu said:


> I figured this would happen. The overzealous PC fanboys come along and instead of *commenting on what the thread asks* they have to start defending PC gaming.
> 
> Protip: This thread is about what people are doing, not what you think they should be doing.
> 
> (...couldn't even get off page 1)



Did you expect anything else?...

How did you expect this question/ discussion To turn out.. Now get back to your console..


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 6, 2011)

PC Gaming is still as big, if not bigger, as it once was.

I just played one hour in an Xbox 360 yesterday. The graphics of FIFA 11 and NBA 2K11 are just *HORRIBLE*.

I can at least tolerate the facts that they are ports when playing the PC version, but the visual differences are just drastic. 

I'm relatively young (just turned 21), and the only console I really had was a PS1 (if you disregard my handhelds like Gameboy Color and my current PSPgo). Yet during that time I was playing games like Fallout, Fallout 2, Red Alert, Jane's Tactical Fighters - ATF: Gold, NBA LIVE 96-98 on the PC. While my PS1 games are usually the ones that are exclusive to it.

Also, I still don't get the "piracy is easier with the PC argument than in the console", because even during the era of PS1 and Windows 98, both are easily pirated anyway.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Aug 6, 2011)

To be quite honest, I think PC gaming is bigger now than it was in the past. The problem is that it just gets overshadowed by the console market because they make more money. Services like Steam actually make PC games more accessible since you don't have to go to a physical store or buy discs. Look at the amount of indie games available, and you'll realize that PC gaming as a whole is nowhere near as dead as people think.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 6, 2011)

I think it's because of multiplayer.  You buy one console ($200-400), a few controllers ($30-100 each), and one game ($50-60) then you can have 4+ players in the same room playing the same thing.  It's also simple with no networking knowledge required so even kids can handle it.

Multiplayer on PC costs a fortune for multiple computers ($1000+ each) and copies of the games ($40-50 each).  Not to mention, it takes up a lot of space.  Networking can also be difficult to set up.

That's the one thing consoles have always had on PCs.


----------



## Cja123 (Aug 6, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it's because of multiplayer.  You buy one console ($200-400), a few controllers ($30-100 each), and one game ($50-60 each) then you can have 4+ players in the same room playing the same thing.  It's also simple with no networking knowledge required so even kids can handle it.
> 
> Multiplayer on PC costs a fortune for multiple computers ($1000+ each) and copies of the games ($40-50 each).  Not to mention, it takes up a lot of space.  Networking can also be difficult to set up.
> 
> That's the one thing consoles have always had on PCs.


 I agree. You can also consider the cost to own a decent gaming PC compared to a console. A PS3 is $299.99 while a gaming computer can run you nearly double. The console pretty much sells itself. It used to be that PC gaming could offer networking but now consoles do as well. You can use a console for nearly everything a typical user would use a computer for; net browsing, streaming video, etc...


----------



## Frizz (Aug 6, 2011)

Cja123 said:


> I agree. You can also consider the cost to own a decent gaming PC compared to a console. A PS3 is $299.99 while a gaming computer can run you nearly double. The console pretty much sells itself. It used to be that PC gaming could offer networking but now consoles do as well. You can use a console for nearly everything a typical user would use a computer for; net browsing, streaming video, etc...



While that's true the console is still bottlenecked by it's own technology eg. less players online due to FPS lag etc. and surfing the web on a console is not very practical at all, at least for my PS3 it is a nightmare I would rather surf the web on my smart phone. The only positive point for consoles are in the aspects of gaming, the other features are close to a gimmick as I am sure most if not all people who own a current gen console have a personal computer to net browse, steam video etc. at home.


----------



## gottistar (Aug 6, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it's because of multiplayer.  You buy one console ($200-400), a few controllers ($30-100 each), and one game ($50-60) then you can have 4+ players in the same room playing the same thing.  It's also simple with no networking knowledge required so even kids can handle it.
> 
> Multiplayer on PC costs a fortune for multiple computers ($1000+ each) and copies of the games ($40-50 each).  Not to mention, it takes up a lot of space.  Networking can also be difficult to set up.
> 
> That's the one thing consoles have always had on PCs.



It would be fair to say that 90% of people on these forums do not have " the regular" computer, hence the price tags,  people like myself consider the "the computer" more of a hobby as well , upgrading/OC,ing.. blah blah blah....

Anyway back to pc gaming...i still think pc gaming isnt dead...there are ALOT of games that are far better on PC....but there's nothing like like playing Mortal kombat 9 on my ps3/projector rig either......


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 6, 2011)

because in the end people do not care about graphics. they just want to have fun. that is why the wii was so successful. and for those who do care about graphics, go outside. the graphics are much better there.


----------



## Shihab (Aug 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> because in the end people do not care about graphics. they just want to have fun. that is why the wii was so successful. and for those who do care about graphics, go outside. the graphics are much better there.



quoting google+: "+1"


----------



## Jetster (Aug 6, 2011)

Because people are trolls


----------



## KainXS (Aug 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> because in the end people do not care about graphics. they just want to have fun. that is why the wii was so successful. and for those who do care about graphics, go outside. the graphics are much better there.



really, alot of people with consoles usually think their consoles the best and many still buy games just because they look good(at low res on their crap tv, most don't know any better), I think its the opposite, and many developers know that if they make a game that looks decent people will but it no matter how shitty it is. rewind to about 12 years ago the psx's time, everyone knew the characters looked like boxes but I have to say the games from then and before were better because developers could focus more on a story instead of effects.

The wii did try to pull back and go to the lets make fun games but only slightly.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 6, 2011)

multi platform games are making them fit the lowest denominator (CPU, GPU, controls), and excessive DRM on the PC platform.


really, thats all it boils down to.


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 6, 2011)

Hotobu said:


> I figured this would happen. The overzealous PC fanboys come along and instead of *commenting on what the thread asks* they have to start defending PC gaming.
> 
> Protip: This thread is about what people are doing, not what you think they should be doing.
> 
> (...couldn't even get off page 1)



Naturally.

But it is such an obvious question that the OP is probably an overzealous PC fanboy looking to stir up controversy.

Consoles are:

Cheaper, Easy to operate, and a games console fits easily and inobtrusively into any lounge or bedroom, a PC does not oftening requiring much more space and expensive furniture being bought to compliment it. Consoles are also uniform in the sense that everyone is singing from same hymn sheet. No compatibility issues, no headaches of any kind. Simply turn the thing on and play.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Aug 6, 2011)

Consoles & piracy.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Aug 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Community - PC, Support - PC, Graphics -PC, Sound -PC, FPS Control (most AAA titles) - PC, Price per game - PC.
> 
> Why are consoles more popular? Because people as a whole are stupid.
> 
> ...



Hmmm... kinda just summed it up in a couple of sentences. I think El_Mayo would like people to expand on that a little bit. Still, food for thought.

Like TMM said, people are stupid. I'll rephrase that; consoles are more accessible to a much bigger target audience than (desktop) PCs. A lot of it is consumer ignorance. They don't understand IT, it scares them. A console is simple plug & play and with developers making GFX 'fantastic' for them then they don't see any need to spend their hard earn bucks on something that could possible be more expensive if they do something wrong.

Then you have the other factors people have mentioned, eg: features of the games and piracy.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Aug 6, 2011)

They grew up being fathers and employees and the religion of fat macdonalds&ibox of dumbed down console kids and steam fanboys replaced them. 

Just days ago is saw people talking at bethesda when watching the RAGE trailer - while the trailer clearly shown "from the makers of doom and quake" ... ignorant, or just plain stupid ?

---------------------------------------- but that's one part. That's actually the consequence that doesn't help much either.


- The PC has much higher standards that most of the industry is experienced to deliver.
- The Microsoft console conspiracy is an obvious note (DirectX, free tools for X360 devs (MS Analyze for debugging) - no regular patch support whatsoever for windows to optimize for gaming)
... i could go on but i don't recall all at this moment

Positives coming and it's only a matter of time:
- ATVI-IW Clusterfuck ... Respawn will release great games for PC in future (dedis already confirmed )
- M$-Bungie Splitup ... Bungie will probably release PC games in future, and expect much better quality than the last Halos.
- ID Software finally done with their data-creation systems and has a big underlayer in place ready to make 2-3 games in the near future - Rage comes in 2 months.
- Metro 2033 Last Light is not going to get dumbed down - it's going to get improved for PC.

From the Carmack Keynote:
Doom4 will be using Super-Script language. A subset of C++ with features like scheduling, type safe, full performance.
RAGE will have modding tools, developer console. (already know that but he mentioned it too)
Doom 4 will have dedicated servers.
RAGE will get "super quality texture pack" on PC
RAGE will get a special "2GB super quality" level DLC (normal levels are 300-500 MB in size) 

In my view ... X360 is the primary cause, it spawned all these camps of immature unexperienced media-reliant consumers. Most of it it's parents buying the games - and they won't listen to Carmack's Keynote before deciding what game to buy for presents, for example.

Microsof has the biggest and roughtest media-push.

Particularly in america - as usual. (im not sure if i  know any online nor real friends with X360 around here where i live, it's mostly nintendos and sonys)
Sony and Nintendo is much less to blame - they wouldn't influence them selfs without MS ...

PS2 sold +100 million and still the PC was getting bigger and bigger in the old days .... you guys forgot that ?

And there were all those great games on GCN and N64 and PC was still going up til 2005-2006.


It's the COMBINED cause of Wii and X360 that did that TREND going on - and the worst part of the industry is - that A LOT OF OTHERS FOLLOW SUIT - but they wouldn't have to.

Now look what's happening, blizzard, idsoftware,relic, petroglyph(i really hope their MMORTS succeeds),dice, bethesda  ...etc all kept going normally ... and the other unexperienced smartasses that had "oh now it's the age of consoles we must do this and that"... are going to get eaten in the hardcore department ofcourse ... no real chance of returning back.


The funny thing is ... Carmack might look at the indsutry and say "oh MS made all our competitiors switch markets - clearing way for us" 

But still this might be good for these few companies ... but it isn't healthy for the PC industry at large and especially hardware industry.

In my opinion I feel very sorry for hardware manufacturers (GPU-CPU-COOLING-PSU-MOBO) because they really kept pushing it no matter what happened in the PC gaming and kind of shame Crysis benchmark is the last real benchmark ... 

Just break it up - it's mostly the unexperienced devs that blamed piracy in PC - and ofcourse the capitalist publishers.

And this is a real happy success story for FINALLY this big PC slates coming now and USING THAT HARDWARE !!! ... BF3, RAGE, Doom 4, PREY 2, SC2 expansions, Diablo 3 (CRYSIS2 a little yeah but a disappoint in gameplay)


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 6, 2011)

Start convincing people to buy a graphics card for their pc.

If they've got a 720 p monitor ( or around that) they could play games at console settings with a small investment)

Convince them damnit!


----------



## Mussels (Aug 6, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Start convincing people to buy a graphics card for their pc.
> 
> If they've got a 720 p monitor ( or around that) they could play games at console settings with a small investment)
> 
> Convince them damnit!




i cant even convince my girlfriend that .avi files direct to her TV/DVD player via USB flash drives is better than her spending hours burning them to DVD. some people are just not interested in anything other than what they already know - they're too scared to try new things and risk looking foolish, so they stay very narrow minded in what they're willing to try, ESPECIALLY if it costs them money.


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 6, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i cant even convince my girlfriend that .avi files direct to her TV/DVD player via USB flash drives is better than her spending hours burning them to DVD. some people are just not interested in anything other than what they already know - they're too scared to try new things and risk looking foolish, so they stay very narrow minded in what they're willing to try, ESPECIALLY if it costs them money.



Let Ford and twilyth deal with her on GN.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 6, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> The simplicity and marketing Consoles have is a huge advantage, if most people just want to play games they just watch to pop in the disc and go. This alone makes those platform more appealing to developers because more people using=more money in it.
> 
> PC gaming tends to be more complicated, because there is no standard set of hardware, it both limits and enhances the experience. It limits because since not everyone is on the same playing field hardware wise, the experience changes and since the majority aren't into PC hardware they won't drop any cash on it. But it enhances by making it a much more flexible platform since there is no hardware standard, the quality shoots up, as there isn't much of a limit to stop them from making beautiful and creative games.
> 
> People see computers as a chore they don't want to deal with, and Consoles solve that problem. PC is more for us that actually care about the insides of our systems.(i personally enjoy both platforms though)



Sure simplicity.

vinyl record \ players v's CD  and i am sure Developer's like to make games for consoles as they don't have t think about other configurations + later in the consoles life there is no extra work for a game 2-3 or even longer were with PC the Developer as new hardware is always coming out.  Which to me has made them all idle\lazy when making a good PC.game.

And i like them both too even vinyl but like Vinyl i like PC more.


----------



## IlluminAce (Aug 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> PC gaming is as big if not bigger then it ever was....and as ALWAYS its superior to console gaming in anyway imaginable.



Regarding the superiority of PC gaming, I agree fullheartedly - I own a grand total of zero consoles, which is as many as I've ever owned!

That aside, I think the question has a lot to do with console vs PC gaming. Whether the entire PC gaming market has increased/decreased over X time period or not, looking at the statistics for console game sales vs PC game sales, we can get a picture that focus has become skewed towards games consoles, simply because that's where the sales growth is. I think some of the reasons for this are indicated in my previous post. 

For example, the ESA's essential facts about the gaming market for 2011 show that total consumer spend *growth* for 2010 (in the US) was 0.7bn USD for PC games, and 9.4bn USD for video (console) games. Or, on unit sales stats (which works out better for PC games, since console games are more expensive on average), growth for PC games was less than 10% that of growth for console games.

Based on total sales, I think it's relatively even between PCs and consoles at the moment, so the growth stats should be somewhat comparable.

That said, some industry figures are predicting greater growth in the PC market in coming years at the expense of consoles, so the tables may turn yet... Can the rigidity of console platform frameworks keep pace with the innovation of the online gaming market and free-to-play, pay-to-enhance gaming models?


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 6, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> People are stupid and they don't want to learn about this stuff, and they don't want to have to learn how to build their own pc.



I don't see whats wrong with that though, people who are into fashion will say ''You're stupid, you can get better clothes then that if you pay more''. But that's just it, i don't want to pay more for clothes because i don't care about hot new clothes.

You can't blame people for not being interested in something that you are, it doesn't make them stupid, they just don't care.


----------



## Horrux (Aug 6, 2011)

I think it has to do with laziness. Sitting on the couch in the living room equals relaxing, whereas sitting in front of the computer equals working, in the minds of many people. Keyboards are "complicated" whereas a console controller is "simple".

Many times I have asked console gamers why they didn't game on their PCs and often got the response that "when I want to relax, I sit on my couch, not in an office chair"...


----------



## techtard (Aug 6, 2011)

It's simple. The greedy, un-imaginative shitheads  who killed the music and movie industries are now major shareholders in the gaming business too. 

They don't understand that gaming is about fun, and innovation.
All they want to do is make maximum profit, and that usually means cloning what is already making money.


----------



## Horrux (Aug 6, 2011)

techtard said:


> It's simple. The greedy, un-imaginative shitheads  who killed the music and movie industries are now major shareholders in the gaming business too.
> 
> They don't understand that gaming is about fun, and innovation.
> All they want to do is make maximum profit, and that usually means cloning what is already making money.



You are right, they are a huge factor, and they are dumbing everything down. :shadedshu


----------



## kalstrand (Aug 6, 2011)

I think part of the problem is that we are "stuck" at 1080 resolution.  If we could get monitor manufacturers to push beyond the cheap 1080 solutions and get higher resolution displays at more affordable prices I think we would see a resurgence in PC gaming.  Currently they can get the same graphics on their TV as their PC and the TV has a bigger screen.  With higher resolutions there would be a clear improvement over console games and those people who want the best will migrate to PC.


----------



## El_Mayo (Aug 6, 2011)

Okay I've written just over 500 words so far, and I've only covered the facts that PC gaming isn't as expensive as people think, the games are cheaper and the online services are cheaper and better 
If anyone wants to help me edit/proof read it so far PM me, it'd be appreciated 



Horrux said:


> I think it has to do with laziness. Sitting on the couch in the living room equals relaxing, whereas sitting in front of the computer equals working, in the minds of many people. Keyboards are "complicated" whereas a console controller is "simple".
> 
> Many times I have asked console gamers why they didn't game on their PCs and often got the response that "when I want to relax, I sit on my couch, not in an office chair"...



You could easily plug in an Xbox 360 controller for Windows though 




techtard said:


> It's simple. The greedy, un-imaginative shitheads  who killed the music and movie industries are now major shareholders in the gaming business too.
> 
> They don't understand that gaming is about fun, and innovation.
> All they want to do is make maximum profit, and that usually means cloning what is already making money.



blatantly talking about Call of Duty


----------



## Horrux (Aug 6, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> You could easily plug in an Xbox 360 controller for Windows though


Yeah but, not sit on a couch... Monitor is too small, FOV is made to be close to the display, etc.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 6, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Yeah but, not sit on a couch... Monitor is too small, FOV is made to be close to the display, etc.



You can get 120hz tvs with 5ms response times these days.

Now I'm not saying it's as good as a monitor but consoles gamers play at 30fps @less than 720p upscaled anyway so it will still look epic eh?


----------



## MRCL (Aug 6, 2011)

I own eight consoles. I own several PCs. I enjoy a few genres more on a console (racing, beat 'em up), and some more on a PC (strategy, shooters, simulations).

The thing is that in the old days, consoles had their games like Mario and Turtles and such, fun games that the PC didn't have. In turn, "we" had Half Life etc. Nowadays, both platforms have more or less the same games; save for a few console exclusives, every console game exists on PC, too. So people often take the easy route of pop the disc in and play. That console games, at least where I'm form, are much more expensive doesn't seem to bother anyone. Speaking of easy route; simply popping the game in and play is gone, too. Installing on the console, mandatory updates, shovelling stuff off the HDD because its clogged... very PC like.

I like to state an example. I bought Dirt 2 for PS3 and enjoyed it. Then I got a 5850 with a free Dirt 2 code for PC. Faster loading times, much better graphics, all advantages. Same with Portal 2 which I own for PS3 and PC. PC is just superior in every way.

What you don't have to forget is that what you are told doesn't necessarily mean its correct. Most of the news agencies here say PC is dead, and in the same sentence they say its all about Angry Birds nowadays, who needs something else.

In my opinion it needs both consoles and PC, with the PC always being on top. Just see modding. Games like Minecraft. Goddamn mouse and keyboard to direct your Sim around, not a fiddly thumbstick. 

Multiplayer offline (I like splitscreen, bring it more often damnit) is far more fun on consoles. Beating each otehr up on the bed (or pillowfight with the girl which ends up almost always with sexytime) over Mariokart64... I have gotten laid because of that game once for above reasons. Coop-shoot your way through levels in Army of Two with your buddy besides you sharing some beers... not possible on the PC.

They HAVE to coexist. But they share too much in common these days which hurts both.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Aug 7, 2011)

One of the great false points of the "PC decline" is the misinterpretation of statistical data.

Everyone of those publishers rely on statistical percentual data ....


The point is .... PC got bigger all the time , it's just the console overshadow got a lot bigger because many many people came into markets , pleople who totally casual.



Why the consoles appear to be more "popular"

-casual-targeting marketing
-consolization of PC franchizes


THe industry created this trend by them selfs , many smaller companies followed suit or folded the aquisition offers - it's their fautl and they blame piracy which has in the reality promoted smaller games with no marketing getting attention and a fanbase.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 7, 2011)

I think there are more computers these days so probably more people playing pc games but its just due to the fact there are less pc exclusives for various reasons.
Back in the day it was a relatively niche hobby being a pc gamer and enthusiast.

EDIT: Consoles used to have arcade type games and was the choice for local co op now with the availability of internet connections and consoles having online systems yeah its impacted a lot on local co op. The pc used to have the RTS games and FPS games that took a while to complete youd have to sit down at a desk and take a while on it, consoles only really had long RPGs that compared to that. You dont get those adventure games really these days either its all 3rd person action or some RPGs.

PC gaming was always pushing the limits of hardware so developers stuck to either consoles or pc now they just port everything to anything they can to maximise profit.


----------



## qubit (Aug 7, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> I've got to write an article for Media coursework and this is the topic I've chosen to write about
> I aim to cover "the glory days"(?) of PC gaming, and myths surrounding PC gaming that other people/console players have about the system that puts them off it etc. etc.
> 
> I just want other people's opinions on the subject, so I have some opinions to write about etc.
> ...



I'd say it's an unfair comparison. You're comparing _*three*_ console platforms to just one PC platform. It's not surprsiing that it's "bigger". Any one of those consoles has a smaller market than the PC.

There's other factors too, of course: console versions of a game sell for significantly more money than the equivalent PC version. A decent gaming PC costs way more than a console, which has a significant effect.

Also, a PC requires much more tuning and maintenance. With a console, you just insert the disc, wait a few seconds and away you go. With a PC, you can often hit driver issues, Windows issues, patches issues etc. Man it can be a pain.  However, you also have the flexibility to significantly alter/tune your video settings, which will be way beyond the capabilities of the clueless console gamer. 

The big payoff of course, is superior performance and special effects - where a game isn't a straight console port. Crysis 2 with the latest patch and awesome DX11 effects comes to mind here.


----------



## seronx (Aug 7, 2011)

These are 2010 pictures but they show one obvious flaw

The PC Market doesn't shrink but grows constantly

Growth can shrink but that doesn't mean it is dying that just means the market is stagnate but the PC market is never truly stagnant there is always better computers

Where consoles are stagnant and keep everything to the level introduced they harm the gaming market but make it easily acceptable

The PC Market evolves the games

While the Console Market simplifies the games


----------



## Hotobu (Aug 7, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://gamerdood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Units-Transparent.png
> 
> http://gamerdood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Revenue-Transparent.png
> 
> ...


LOL @ out of context graphs. First of all it's impossible to measure PC "units" because there's no way to count them. How do they distinguish between library and school computers, and those at government institutions, and even then how do you distinguish a home "unit" at someone's grandma's house vs. one for actual gaming?

As for revenue this is also a bit nebulous. WOW and other subscription based games make a huge amount of revenue, but that doesn't speak to the feasibility of being a company in the market.


----------



## seronx (Aug 7, 2011)

Hotobu said:


> LOL @ out of context graphs. First of all it's impossible to measure PC "units" because there's no way to count them. How do they distinguish between library and school computers, and those at government institutions, and even then how do you distinguish a home "unit" at someone's grandma's house vs. one for actual gaming?





			
				Brian said:
			
		

> I only counted those PC’s that have a dedicated, DirectX 10+ graphics card. This should narrow the field to only PC’s used for gaming or industrial graphics. Units are in millions.
> 
> As you can see, the computer with advanced graphics is far more plentiful than any console. Computers here have 65% of the market, with 340 million units. Nintendo’s Wii comes in a far second, with 84 million units. The Xbox 360 has 50 million units, and Sony’s Playstation 3 accounts for only 48 million units. These numbers are current as of January 6, 2011.



PC sold 350 Million Units with DX10+ Graphics




Hotobu said:


> As for revenue this is also a bit nebulous. WOW and other subscription based games make a huge amount of revenue, but that doesn't speak to the feasibility of being a company in the market.





			
				Brian said:
			
		

> Let’s next look at gaming revenue for 2010. If we plot how much revenue each platform generated, we should see a more correlative spread. This will let us know, generally speaking, the popularity of each platform in terms of games purchased. Units are in billions.



PC Earns more and making an MMO usually yields greater returns than releasing a new game every year that is basically the old game with better programming


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 7, 2011)

A bit OT I guess, but still relevant. Western companies, in this case gaming companies, have now been stuck in the McKinsey way of doing business. If you ask them, "what are you going to do with this market?" they'll answer, "see maximum profit as much as possible." and not "see as much profit as possible for as much utility as possible for as many consumers as possible."


----------



## Hotobu (Aug 7, 2011)

seronx said:


> PC sold 350 Million Units with DX10+ Graphics



So what? Unless I'm mistaken DX10+ Just means that the machine has Vista or Windows 7.





> PC Earns more and making an MMO usually yields greater returns than releasing a new game every year that is basically the old game with better programming



Which is exactly my point. A few games making a large revenue doesn't hint at a larger market. For instance if 3 billionares were to live in a medium sized town where everyone else are middle and lower middle class that town would qualify as "one of the richest towns in America" in terms of total worth of its citizens, but that hardly speaks to what the worth of the typical citizen is.


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 7, 2011)

Hotobu said:


> Which is exactly my point. A few games making a large revenue doesn't hint at a larger market. For instance if 3 billionares were to live in a medium sized town where everyone else are middle and lower middle class that town would qualify as "one of the richest towns in America" in terms of total worth of its citizens, but that hardly speaks to what the worth of the typical citizen is.



MMO-wise though, Western MMOs are a minority. Those "few games" making a large revenue are made by companies (usually Korean, sometimes Chinese) that don't make other games except those MMOs.

And are there really "a few games" (MMOs)? By my count there are at least 20 already. Well unless you're in Asia I guess then there won't be a lot of MMOs.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Aug 7, 2011)

In order to play PC games you have to:

-have time
-be an expert
-past knowledge 


And all that makes the market smaller - why - because nobody above 30 is on the PC like a big geek - or they just don't have time and see games as "childish" to not be embarrased.

But the most point i'll ever say ... is this,  grown up people never brag what and when they play they do it privately and that means no interaction with the internet people either - kind of invisibile customers.


You don't expect some non-techy people from down the street to be playing PC games - as those people are mostly very controllable by the media which obviously directs them to the consoles and all those money wasting stuff.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Aug 7, 2011)

Oh of course the other factor is that PC community grow up ... but yes, another big factor ...

... whihc is a psychological one, the oversaturation with all these games is definitely a downside and one of the most important things is the wow factor ... nobody expects a game that can replay the success of those in the golden age - nobody expects any big game that all the world would see like !WOW what's poosible! .... there's no more that - there's too much games so much ideas already so much of it is known that people are used to and it's not any GROUNDbreaking thing it's nothing this generation would see as not coming - we have much more imagination ourselfs that the industry can produce because it's just how wrong they operate.


Ofcourse ... hail to the master - there is one game left that can potentially do this, and that game is Doom 4.


----------



## Horrux (Aug 7, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> In order to play PC games you have to:
> 
> -have time
> -be an expert
> ...



I think you are extremely, totally, and completely wrong about this. As a matter of fact, I am a gamer above 40 years old, and my clan has a number of 40+ players. My WIFE plays BFBC2, STALKER and just about every game out there and she's 40+. How many women in their 20s play? And yes, on PC.

We see consoles as children's toys and PCs are for grown-ups. My previous clan was for 40+ only and there are a number of such out there. The PC gaming community is much more mature than that of the consoles, I would wager on that. That 40+ gamers do or don't talk about gaming in the office at work is debatable, but online they are very active. My clan didn't advertise being for "old 40+ people", it's just "a clan". Yet, half the members are 35 and above... How?


----------



## Widjaja (Aug 7, 2011)

More of the people I know personally are Console gamers but also own PCs because their PCs regardless of being newer than their consoles, are a pre-built POS which is only good for low gaming on low graphics and the consoles are simpler to use for them.


----------



## Hotobu (Aug 7, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> MMO-wise though, Western MMOs are a minority. Those "few games" making a large revenue are made by companies (usually Korean, sometimes Chinese) that don't make other games except those MMOs.
> 
> And are there really "a few games" (MMOs)? By my count there are at least 20 already. Well unless you're in Asia I guess then there won't be a lot of MMOs.



You're still not understanding. First of all 20, compared to the hundreds of games per console *is* a few. Furthermore MMOs are fantastic for generating revenue because of obvious reasons. This skews the revenue towards the PC side as 1 mediocre performing MMO can generate the revenue of several A+ titles. Part of the reason for the confusion is that the op doesn't explicitly define what he means by "big."

Total players is one thing.
Total revenue is another.
Developers in the market that are able to sustain profit is another.

Right now I'm speaking moreso about the latter. Looking at total revenue isn't a good indicator for how easy it is to take a dive, or make a splash in a market. You have to look at how all of the players are doing.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Aug 7, 2011)

Horrux said:


> I think you are extremely, totally, and completely wrong about this. As a matter of fact, I am a gamer above 40 years old, and my clan has a number of 40+ players. My WIFE plays BFBC2, STALKER and just about every game out there and she's 40+. How many women in their 20s play? And yes, on PC.
> 
> We see consoles as children's toys and PCs are for grown-ups. My previous clan was for 40+ only and there are a number of such out there. The PC gaming community is much more mature than that of the consoles, I would wager on that. That 40+ gamers do or don't talk about gaming in the office at work is debatable, but online they are very active. My clan didn't advertise being for "old 40+ people", it's just "a clan". Yet, half the members are 35 and above... How?



That "30" was meant to be 50 .... typo

What i mean to say is that it's not that old .... it's getting but it's not like right now.


----------



## Hotobu (Aug 7, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> That "30" was meant to be 50 .... typo
> 
> What i mean to say is that it's not that old .... it's getting but it's not like right now.



Still seems a bit flimsy. I doubt there are many 50+ gamers at all. Actually if anything it seems to me like these would be the people most likely to be on a PC. While the younger generation is more prone to be tech savvy there's also the chance that they grew up being inundated with a console culture. The people who are around 50+ would be the people who were playing Amigas in college and have been gaming ever since. The post late 70s early 80s videogame crash gave way to a bunch of younger players.


----------



## Horrux (Aug 7, 2011)

Hotobu said:


> Still seems a bit flimsy. I doubt there are many 50+ gamers at all.



I know a few, but yeah, there are less 50+ gamers. This has to do with one thing, the age they were when computers and video games were first introduced. Someone who is 51 today was 21 when the first personal computers became available, so they grew up without any digital entertainment at all, whereas anyone in their early 40s or younger likely had computers around them, or at least had some kind of experience of them before they became adult. And of course as you go down in current age to 35, 30, 25, and so on, the widespread-ness of computer and electronics use at an early age increases.

But that doesn't mean that as people turn 50 they stop gaming. That would be just total nonsense. I am 43 and I will game until I am too old to do so, which means a LONG ass time. I'll probably still game in my 80s and beyond. There is just no reason not to. I'm sure my generation will keep gaming forever, and every generation after that. So in 10 years you will have good numbers of gamers in their 50s, and in 20 years in their 60s, and in 30 years in their 70s, and so on.

Oh, and believe me, older gamers don't use children's toys, aka consoles.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 14, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I don't see whats wrong with that though, people who are into fashion will say ''You're stupid, you can get better clothes then that if you pay more''. But that's just it, i don't want to pay more for clothes because i don't care about hot new clothes.
> 
> You can't blame people for not being interested in something that you are, it doesn't make them stupid, they just don't care.



I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that most of my friends (14-16 year old boys) play xbox, I ask them why and they simply say "it's easier and cheaper" While that is true, for $500 you could make a decent rig and get a screen. Where if you want a xbox you spend $300 on that, and you're probably going to get a extra controller, ($70) A headset($20) and XBL time cards ($60 per year) That's $450 for one year, where that computer for $500 you would be fine with it for 4-5 years, depends on how much games change. And for it being easier, that I have to give them, because learning all these sockets, and companies and what thermal paste is better by how much is kinda hard.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 14, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that most of my friends (14-16 year old boys) play xbox, I ask them why and they simply say "it's easier and cheaper" While that is true, for $500 you could make a decent rig and get a screen. Where if you want a xbox you spend $300 on that, and you're probably going to get a extra controller, ($70) A headset($20) and XBL time cards ($60 per year) That's $450 for one year, where that computer for $500 you would be fine with it for 4-5 years, depends on how much games change. And for it being easier, that I have to give them, because learning all these sockets, and companies and what thermal paste is better by how much is kinda hard.



Ever think of functionality and possibly getting a career in PC hardware/software? I guess that thought never occurred to them? From a strict gaming point, PC still has got it over console. Ease of use, maybe but far superior hardware yes definitely but will we ever stray away from ports again, who knows "Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?" ports & poor coding to rush a title.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Ever think of functionality and possibly getting a career in PC hardware/software? I guess that thought never occurred to them? From a strict gaming point, PC still has got it over console. Ease of use, maybe but far superior hardware yes definitely but will we ever stray away from ports again, who knows "Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?" ports & poor coding to rush a title.



I think it's because everyone has a computer and OEMs are getting to the point where they are close to just okay gaming rigs. I saw a HP in staples the other day with a 6 core 3.2 ghz phenom, 8 gigs 1333, a 5770, and a 1tb black for 1.2k. It has a pree sick case too. I think most people that play some ftp game on pc think of them selves as a pc gamer.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 14, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> I think it's because everyone has a computer and OEMs are getting to the point where they are close to just okay gaming rigs. I saw a HP in staples the other day with a 6 core 3.2 ghz phenom, 8 gigs 1333, a 5770, and a 1tb black for 1.2k. It has a pree sick case too. I think most people that play some ftp game on pc think of them selves as a pc gamer.



Oh I'm not disagreeing with you, not at all. My definition of PC gamer; prefers the use of keyboard+mouse over a controller/gamepad. 



Kevinheraiz said:


> HP in staples the other day with a 6 core 3.2 ghz phenom, 8 gigs 1333, a 5770, and a 1tb black for 1.2k.



Whoever is buying that is going to get ripped off:
Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, L...
Xigmatek ASGARD II B/B CPC-T45UC-U01 Black / Black...
CORSAIR Builder Series CX430 V2 430W ATX12V v2.3  ...
SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cac...
LITE-ON 24X DVD Writer 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD...
SAPPHIRE 100315L Radeon HD 6850 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 ...
CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM...
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit - Oper...
ASUS VH242H Black 23.6" 5ms HDMI Full 1080P Widesc...

Save about $200 building yourself(didn't include KB mouse speakers moreso personal preference in that dept.) and it would be MUCH better hardware. Forgot to add; $55 saving AMIR's and there are a few coupon codes for $10 off.


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Aug 14, 2011)

Consoles = Stooooooooooooopid heads/little children and or tight asses

People who play pc and buy a 1.5k prebuilt computer and find out it can barely play any game = majority of people

People who actually know how to game on pc's = tpu community


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 14, 2011)

1nf3rn0x said:


> Consoles = Stooooooooooooopid heads/little children and or tight asses



Wouldn't say that. Consoles have their own uses, and have their fair share of good games. Some games are better playing on consoles (Little Big Planet comes to mind), others better on PC. Each have their own niches, and its just unfortunate that most people are picking the convenience of a console to game rather than to build and maintain a PC.


----------



## qubit (Aug 14, 2011)

1nf3rn0x said:


> Consoles = Stooooooooooooopid heads/little children and or tight asses
> 
> People who play pc and buy a 1.5k prebuilt computer and find out it can barely play any game = majority of people
> 
> People who actually know how to game on pc's = tpu community



You forgot something: and the TPU community can build an uber gaming rig for half the money of that 1.5k piece of sh*t prebuilt.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 14, 2011)

1nf3rn0x said:


> Consoles = Stooooooooooooopid heads/little children and or tight asses
> 
> People who play pc and buy a 1.5k prebuilt computer and find out it can barely play any game = majority of people
> 
> People who actually know how to game on pc's = tpu community



http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/po...verage-player-37-42-percent-of-gamers-female/


----------



## Frizz (Aug 14, 2011)

I don't think its "PC's not being as big as it was" but rather more people are becoming gamers. We have so many mobile devices and applications now that can create a gateway for people to become a gamer eg. Facebook games, tablets, smartphones etc. so imo this would naturally spike interests for consoles which in turn could create the image that PC gaming is dying because so many more people are buying and playing on consoles. But then again as most people would know here, the real experience lies in a system with dual 980x CPUs both clocked at 4.5ghz, 4-way SLI GTX 580's and 3x 3D capable 30 inch monitors


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Ever think of functionality and possibly getting a career in PC hardware/software? I guess that thought never occurred to them? From a strict gaming point, PC still has got it over console. Ease of use, maybe but far superior hardware yes definitely *but will we ever stray away from ports again*, who knows "Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?" *ports* & poor coding to rush a title.



The reason why consoles are now the main mainstream gaming platform is so obvious that it don't really require answering.

But from an enthuisiast PC gamers point of view, who will continue to invest big bucks in order to play mostly souped up console ports with several layers of eye candy on top; the reason that PC gaming is not as big as it used to be is purely down to the games.

The last game that made a buzz amongst the PC gaming crowd was Crysis, albeit arguably not for the most desired reasons. As far as online FPS games go the last truly great PC outing was BF2. Bad Company 2 on PC may well be a great game, but due to it being made primarily with the console market in mind, for all its destruction physics and amazing eye candy, it simply lacks the scale and depth of its older brother. BF3 looks as though it is going to have more in common with BFBC2 than BF2 also.

If there was another truly brilliant game truly designed to take full advantage of PC gaming (outwith MMORPGs), then people who truly love gaming will find out about it and flock to it. Just as I did in my late 20's when I first found out about BF2 back in 2006! (previous to this, I gamed only on consoles).

The lack of a buzz in modern PC gaming is due to the lack of buzz creating titles, which in turn is a consequence of the direction in which big business interests have pushed mainstream gaming.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 15, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Oh I'm not disagreeing with you, not at all. My definition of PC gamer; prefers the use of keyboard+mouse over a controller/gamepad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yes, but if some 34 year old mother is looking for a computer for her son will just ask them what one is good and buy that. And that one comes with a 26"  screen and that shitty m$ mouse/ kbrd


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 15, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> Yes, but if some *34 year old *mother is looking for a computer for her son will just ask them what one is good and buy that. And that one comes with a 26"  screen and that shitty m$ mouse/ kbrd



My wife is 32. She knows how to overclock.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 15, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> My wife is 32. She knows how to overclock.



when princess learns how to overclock a system and stability test it, i'll propose once linpack reaches 24 hours >.>


(good thing she lurks GN and not TPU, or she'd start practising on her old desktop)


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 15, 2011)

mussels said:


> when princess learns how to overclock a system and stability test it, i'll propose once linpack reaches 24 hours >.>
> 
> 
> (good thing she lurks gn and not tpu, or she'd start practising on her old desktop)



lol.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 15, 2011)

Mussels said:


> when princess learns how to overclock a system and stability test it, i'll propose once linpack reaches 24 hours >.>
> 
> 
> (good thing she lurks GN and not TPU, or she'd start practising on her old desktop)



LOL She's not any part of GN or TPU. But Yeah I know bad example, she stopped overclocking "I see no reason to do it".


----------



## Horrux (Aug 15, 2011)

MatTheCat said:


> The reason why consoles are now the main mainstream gaming platform is so obvious that it don't really require answering.
> 
> But from an enthuisiast PC gamers point of view, who will continue to invest big bucks in order to play mostly souped up console ports with several layers of eye candy on top; the reason that PC gaming is not as big as it used to be is purely down to the games.
> 
> ...



Oh yes, this is perfectly true. People tend to go, well if there was demand for it, it would be big. But things don't work like that in reality. Markets are created, maintained and steered by the huge bucks. And right now it's all about dumbing things down and consoles. The lowest common denominator pretty much always win, in the real world.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 15, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> My wife is 32. She knows how to overclock.



That was a example of the kind of people that call me to fix their computers. Your wife is a exception, a bad ass exception.


----------



## SK-1 (Aug 17, 2011)

Thought this was interesting...
It wasn't too terribly long ago that Epic president Mike Capps pretty much told PC gamers to take a hike – or at least trek to the back of the line, behind everyone else. Happily, however, a bit over a year later, he's singing an entirely different tune. PC, he says, is done playing second fiddle.

"The PC has for too long been a port-to platform," he said during a GDC Europe presentation, also mentioning that Epic's "hard at work building on Unreal Engine 4." 

Next up, he announced that Epic's currently cracking the development whip on five new games – none of which are the upcoming Gears of War 3. His company's not taking a quantity over quality approach, though. See, Epic's watched many other triple-A developers blindly follow one another right off a bridge. The Unreal creator, however, doesn't plan on being next in line. 

"At Epic we didn't multiply the studio size by five when we started working on these multiple projects, so you can make some assumptions about the size of those projects," Capps explained. "Everyone knows the middle class is disappearing from the console business. Gears of War, I hope will do really well, but a pretty good game doesn't make its money back any more. A game like Homefront sells a couple of million copies and they close the studio, right?”

"That's not enough any more. That's pretty depressing. You don't want to see what happens to an industry where it's Call of Duty, Halo and Gears and no-one else has enough money to make any games any more. That's not a fun industry. I can't bet my entire company every time I make a game, that's a really dangerous business,” he concluded. 

If you're afraid that we're just one blasphemous press release away from Unrealville or Angry Bairds, though, you need not fret; Capps added that triple-A is in Epic's DNA. Thing is, Epic tested the waters on a different scale of triple-A with XBLA hit Shadow Complex and iOS posterchild Infinity Blade. The end result? Cash. A lot of it.

Now then, fingers crossed that a penny or two finds its way into the probably nanomachine-enhanced cup of that gorgeous “Samaritan” tech demo from earlier this year. A third-person cyberpunk robot puncher? It's OK, everyone. Call off the search. Gaming just found its Citizen Kane.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/gaming/epic_games_its_time_stop_treating_pc_“port-_platform”


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 17, 2011)

Most populair console games won't go for a PC approach, bacause it costs to much and maybe it won't be console apealing, and then it's bye bye.

That is where Blizzard and Valve have found a great spot. Blizzard has conquered the MMO, RPG and RTS market with great quality, people still play their classics and love them. Valve is really in a great spot, if their games flop, which i highly doubt, then they always have Steam to fall back on. 

EA knows this and wants to make their own money of a steam look-a-like. Which actually only is pissing people off, lowering their PC sales. BF3 was no matter what going to be a success on the PC. BF3 was going to the biggest FPS game on the PC this year and getting it off steam will only lower the sales. What for? Making extra money by using Origin.

I personally don't have any problem with Origin, it works fine and i have had no problems so far, it is just sad in my opinion.

PC gaming in general has pretty much not changed, we still play the same kind of games, with a console port know and then. It is just the ammount of console gamers that has multi quadrippled.


----------



## The_Ish (Aug 17, 2011)

There are many clients like steam, less known for sure, but there are plenty. I think the reason so many are hating on origin is the same reason I'm kind of bummed is that I want to have all my downloaded (not pirated!) games on one client. But since origin is only the 2nd one i get, i'll accept it.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't think PC gaming has ever been higher honestly. I think too many factor out parts of pc gaming when they do these setups, or rather compare to console numbers rather than former pc gaming numbers. 

for 1 console ports actually fuel pc gaming. You may not like them but in the past a game came out on a console and a console only and we rarely had any big studios make a game for the PC at all because it wasn't as profitible as consoles.

this is still true, but we get all the titles now because it's much easier to port and support all platforms than it used to be. Consoles these days are just crippled PC's on older hardware anyways. So it's all too easy to make the title for the big money and port to pc after. 

there are also MMO's, flash games, and all kinds of different gamign that is left out.


in the end if you were to look at pc gaming from the mid 90's, then mid 2000's (say 2005), and then now you'd see that pc gaming took a large jump in the mid 2000's and has continued to grow stronger and stonger since. 

it's only when you compare the amount of console gamers to pc gamers that it seems like pc gaming isn't doing well. When in reality it's on a steady growth curve.


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 8, 2011)

Also does anyone have any examples (preferably recent) of atrocious DRM measures/mass piracy?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> Also does anyone have any examples (preferably recent) of atrocious DRM measures/mass piracy?



ubisofts always on DRM, and how all their games got pirated anyway?


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 9, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> Also does anyone have any examples (preferably recent) of atrocious DRM measures/mass piracy?



http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm sure this is kind of a combination of things that have already been said, but gaming used to be a niche. Now it's mainstream. Everything that has gone mainstream has been ruined (in the opinion of the original members of the niche) so that everybody can participate easily. Hence, where the consoles come in.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 9, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> I'm sure this is kind of a combination of things that have already been said, but gaming used to be a niche. Now it's mainstream. Everything that has gone mainstream has been ruined (in the opinion of the original members of the niche) so that everybody can participate easily. Hence, where the consoles come in.



Even in the days of the Gamecube and PS1, and they were both selling greatly in the 90s, there weren't any DRM in PC games (and if there were, it's just a CD-key/serial number). I still remember that since that was the first years I'm installing a PC game, C&C: Red Alert, Fallout 1 & 2, MDK, etc.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 9, 2011)

PC games used to be "at the right price", which was typically about 30%-50% less than console games. Why? Because consoles as still somewhat cross-subsidised by the sale of games.  Either directly (e.g. xbox sold at loss, but profits recovered on sale of accessories or games) or indirectly (e.g. lots of shop-floor assigned to a console requires a lot of profit on sale of games to cover the rental costs of the space assigned to the console and to demo games etc).

The PC game market didnt require these cross subsidies so therefore could be sold at a lower price but STILL have the same profit margins.

NOW, developers and retailers try to price gouge on PC games. Unfair IMO for PC'ers since they spent DOUBLE or TRIPLE on their rig compared to the price of a console.  It's a bit of market collusion IMO.

Get PC games back to $20-$30 and I would buy 6 or 7 titles per year.  Keep the prices at $50-$60 and I won't buy any. I find it an insult in fact that "made for console" ports to the PC are so expensive since they are rubbish compared to "made for PC" quality can achieve.

Net net, the marginal cost of a game is low.  They should focus on selling volume to the PC market.


----------



## HossHuge (Sep 9, 2011)

Other than demos,  are there any free games for consoles?  I haven't played a console game since my Gamecube a million years ago.

I mean if there aren't shouldn't this help PC gaming more?


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 9, 2011)

PC gaming sucks now because its very expensive to keep up. its not worth it anymore. the majority of the users are not enthusiasts. im not a hardware geek or enthusiast. PC gaming needs a permanent solution for everything to be popular and affordable for the majority. i blame those greedy profiteering gluttons such as Intel, amd, nvidia to make pc gaming expensive.

and dont tell me about those people who cant live without purchasing a new hardware every bloody 6 months. because these kind of people are in the minority.

these things are ruining the pc gaming, not piracy. piracy and pirates are just a myth.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 9, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> Other than demos,  are there any free games for consoles?  I haven't played a console game since my Gamecube a million years ago.
> 
> I mean if there aren't shouldn't this help PC gaming more?



consoles have free games and the free to play business model is coming.


----------



## Vancha (Sep 9, 2011)

> "Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?"


Is it not?

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2010/04/19/hear-that-knocking-sound-its-pc-gaming/

Between WoW, Steam and social games (Farmville and the like), I suspect it's bigger than ever.


----------



## GSquadron (Sep 9, 2011)

Play Assasin's Creed and you will understand the signs and the robe ezio has which made the difference of pc gaming. Also, Nicole Scherzinger has the same signs and robe in her videos. Why both of them are famous? The signs which they know. There is no need to fool the fools


----------



## Champ (Sep 9, 2011)

i didn't comment at the beginning, but I'll throw a bit in now.  I think PC gaming is better now than its ever been.  Games are spotty at best, but that's on the makers.  Lots of manufactures are making hardware specifically for the gaming crowd or expanding to it.  Newer OSs are geared more toward the gamer crowd also.  It seems like a lot of the major advances in the PC world direct affect us gaming wise or the other way around.  My buddy that is a hardcore console gamer wanted to buy my rig when he saw a lot of the games and some of the same title he had on console look and run better and my rig was craptacular.  I think its people not just giving it a try.  I know guys now i their 20's that don't know what a flashdrive is or know how to download music.  I'm so serious.  People fear what they don't understand and you must have a good understanding of PCs all the way round to build good combos, OC and all that good stuff.


----------



## erixx (Sep 9, 2011)

PC gaming is good this year! I have more games installed than ever and enjoy em every day or two.
Of course there are things to fix, but...


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 9, 2011)

erixx said:


> PC gaming is good this year! I have more games installed than ever and enjoy em every day or two.
> Of course there are things to fix, but...



BUT THE GRAPHICS ARE AWESOME... oh yeah and I don't have to use stupid thumbtacks to aim.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 9, 2011)

xbox is better than pc.


----------



## chaotic_uk (Sep 9, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> xbox is better than pc.



xbox is a pc but cut down


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 9, 2011)

The xbox is a cheap mans pc


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 9, 2011)

Vancha said:


> Is it not?
> 
> http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2010/04/19/hear-that-knocking-sound-its-pc-gaming/
> 
> Between WoW, Steam and social games (Farmville and the like), I suspect it's bigger than ever.



Yeah I wrote about how social games are massive and Zynga are the biggest profiting game developer (I THINK so anyway, I'll need a source)
And I'm gonna write how WoW is big because it's really social and doesn't need a gaming PC


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 10, 2011)

the problem is with the gluttons such as intel, nvidia, amd who make never ending hardware. if they stop making hardware and just make a permanent hardware and game developers stop making demanding games, then everything will be fine.

i have just been forced to spend $500 to upgrade my cpu, motherboard and ram. and who forced me?

Intel of course.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> the problem is with the gluttons such as intel, nvidia, amd who make never ending hardware. if they stop making hardware and just make a permanent hardware and game developers stop making demanding games, then everything will be fine.
> 
> i have just been forced to spend $500 to upgrade my cpu, motherboard and ram. and who forced me?
> 
> Intel of course.



I don't see how that makes sense, there is no such thing as making ''permanent hardware'', technology naturally progresses. 

No one forced you to spend $500 on a CPU, that was your own choice.(not being mean, just saying that Intel didn't pull out your wallet, you did)


----------



## Maban (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> the problem is with the gluttons such as intel, nvidia, amd who make never ending hardware. if they stop making hardware and just make a permanent hardware and game developers stop making demanding games, then everything will be fine.
> 
> i have just been forced to spend $500 to upgrade my cpu, motherboard and ram. and who forced me?
> 
> Intel of course.



I'm sorry, what? Developing new and faster technologies make companies gluttons? By your logic, we would still be playing an Atari and not an Xbox.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 10, 2011)

I just spent £280 on mine and i'm loving it so far. roll on some new games.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> the problem is with the gluttons such as intel, nvidia, amd who make never ending hardware. if they stop making hardware and just make a permanent hardware and game developers stop making demanding games, then everything will be fine.
> 
> i have just been forced to spend $500 to upgrade my cpu, motherboard and ram. and who forced me?
> 
> Intel of course.



considering you coulda spent $300, or even gone AMD... you wasted your money if all you do is play todays games.


----------



## Frizz (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> the problem is with the gluttons such as intel, nvidia, amd who make never ending hardware. if they stop making hardware and just make a permanent hardware and game developers stop making demanding games, then everything will be fine.
> 
> i have just been forced to spend $500 to upgrade my cpu, motherboard and ram. and who forced me?
> 
> Intel of course.



I think your are pointing fingers at the wrong direction here, blame technology for advancing and "Forcing" you to upgrade. AFAIK my friend is still running a Q6600 and a 8800GT and is still able to experience all of today's games, so I think deep down you maybe experiencing some TPU upgrade itches? 

And sorry you also quoted that PC gaming sucks now because of how expensive it is? You obviously don't know what you're talking about as the price/performance ratio of all gaming hardware is much better than it ever was, you could probably make a decent enough PC to run all the games with that $500 you were "forced" to used.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 10, 2011)

random said:


> you could probably make a decent enough PC to run all the games with that $500 you were "forced" to used.



Lol says you with your 6950 xfire


----------



## DEFEATEST (Sep 10, 2011)

I would guess that it's bigger now then ever before. Im sure you can find many web sites that will tell you how many people are online playing at any given time. Look at what Steam is these days compared to a few short years ago. Look at Origin , they have like 4 million users already. Steam will tell you how many peeps are online at any given time. The consoles have made gaming huge, but pc's are still going strong. There are more people playing pc now then at any other time I would imagine. Consoles are just eclipsing gaming in the mainstream.


----------



## Frizz (Sep 10, 2011)

tigger said:


> Lol says you with your 6950 xfire



lol I have my older rig right next to my beast  

Q6600 stock
P5Q Pro
4650 1GB
4GB RAM
450watt PSU

this setup could be way under 400 and its good enough to play games on when I have friends over for some coop action eg. borderlands and Dead Island . If I had a gts 450 or 6770 it'd be even better for gaming


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 10, 2011)

but why a permanent solution for CPU, GPU, ram and motherboard is not good?

i prefer that. intel, nvidia and amd can make a permanent solution for everything so that we dont have to upgrade often.

i would happily pay for that permanent hardware.

but my wishes are just empty wishes. because no one would be around soon anyway.

earth is going  to be destroyed soon enough this year by Planet X or Nibiru. so yeah, we all gonna die anyway.


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 10, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> because in the end people do not care about graphics. they just want to have fun. that is why the wii was so successful. and for those who do care about graphics, go outside. the graphics are much better there.



  Hi, your right for a lot of people's end results. It makes me think back to the very early days of PC gaming and the early game players like the Atari and the Commodore 64s. 
 And while these early game players were in a way computers (except for the Atari 2600 I think) they had pretty basic graphics but they had some totally fun games that people played for hours on end.
  Today people may complain that a game is not worth buying because the graphics aren't good enough but when the dust settles it's the game that offers the most bang for the buck that wins out.
  With some games it's all they got going for them is their graphics and once people see through this to find nothing fun behind the flashy graphics it then gets a real review and it's numbers shrink down fast and any flash and no sizzle 2 comes out it's a flop right off even if it has the best looking what ever.
  I keep wishing for a real playable total port for Pacman and missle command and Donky Kong for the PC. Man those were fun games.  Space invaders, Astroids... So simple and yet so fun.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> but my wishes are just empty wishes. because no one would be around soon anyway.
> 
> earth is going  to be destroyed soon enough this year by Planet X or Nibiru. so yeah, we all gonna die anyway.



Captain Planet will save us

[yt]jYiXg2QNW-s[/yt]


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> but why a permanent solution for CPU, GPU, ram and motherboard is not good?
> 
> i prefer that. intel, nvidia and amd can make a permanent solution for everything so that we dont have to upgrade often.
> 
> ...



the system you have now? its permanent hardware. just game at 1280x720 at medium or low settings and it'll last you for years, just like the consoles.


----------



## Bow (Sep 10, 2011)

IMPO, its all about money.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 10, 2011)

Mussels: no. i want a permanent hardware that i can use forever and be able to MAX out everything. thats what i want.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Mussels: no. i want a permanent hardware that i can use forever and be able to MAX out everything. thats what i want.



then i laugh at your stupidity.


----------



## Maban (Sep 10, 2011)

Mussels said:


> then i laugh at your stupidity.



Finally someone said it.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 10, 2011)

its all about fucking money.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> its all about fucking money.



no, its all about gullible idiots who must have the latest and greatest, but dont want to spend the money to have it.


stop being so greedy and obsessed with having the best, and the problem goes away. or, actually put the effort and money into earning the best.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 10, 2011)

I will thrive to learn to make my own permanent hardware. thats what i want to do. I want to make my own cpu, gpu, ram and motherboard.

if Battlefield 3 turns out to be not demanding like recent games such Deux, dead island, Call of Juarez: The cartel, Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine and Hard Reset, that can be easily maxed out , then i will be happy. 

Game developers should all be the same and make a game that can be maxed out easily like recent games. why Battlefield 3 should be any different??


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> I will thrive to learn to make my own permanent hardware. thats what i want to do. I want to make my own cpu, gpu, ram and motherboard.
> 
> if Battlefield 3 turns out to be not demanding like recent games such Deux, dead island, Call of Juarez: The cartel, Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine and Hard Reset, that can be easily maxed out , then i will be happy.
> 
> Game developers should all be the same and make a game that can be maxed out easily like recent games. why Battlefield 3 should be any different??



at this point, its clear you're just trolling. i remember a previous member who acted just like you, and he ended up banned for it. keep that in mind.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 10, 2011)

I think he wishes the desktop model had low level access like current gen consoles?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I think he wishes the desktop model had low level access like current gen consoles?



no he wants to make his own CPU, GPU, ram and MB from scratch and never upgrade it, but be able to play new game titles at max as they come out.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 10, 2011)

like Johnny Mnemonic? USB port on the side of your head!


----------



## techtard (Sep 10, 2011)

PC gaming isn't that expensive to get into. A decent gaming setup will cost you about the same as a console when they are first released. You don't need the absolute best just for gaming.

If the programmers weren't so lazy, and if the publishers would spend a little more time and money testing and optimizing games, everything out today would run at over 60 fps on a new budget gaming pc.

But, it's easier to write sloppy code and rely on fast cpus and monster gpus to make games play at acceptable framerates.

Honestly, most PC games are console ports designed to run on an xbox 360, which is basically an old and slow (by todays standards) PC. And most of them run pretty badly, considering how much more powerful todays gaming computers are than an xbox.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Sep 10, 2011)

Convenience.  It's easier to pop a disc in and pick up a pad.  Consoles are idiot proof, kinda.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2011)

HookeyStreet said:


> Convenience.  It's easier to pop a disc in and pick up a pad.  Consoles are idiot proof, kinda.



my manager at work got a PS3, took him a week to get it working. he was using component cables to a composite connection on his TV.


ALMOST idiot proof.


----------



## Maban (Sep 10, 2011)

Them color coded cables sure are tricky to figure out eh?


----------



## techtard (Sep 10, 2011)

Mussels said:


> my manager at work got a PS3, took him a week to get it working. he was using component cables to a composite connection on his TV.
> 
> 
> ALMOST idiot proof.



Idiot proof, not retard proof. LOL


----------



## fusionblu (Sep 11, 2011)

While for the most part it's mostly about money it is also because most people aren't aware of the potential that PCs have over games consoles and of course games consoles are much better advertised than Gaming PCs from what I'm aware of.

There is also the false illusion that games consoles play games in better quality since most of the system is devoted to playing games (not necessarily true as consoles have more than one application such as being signed into an account which has messenger to communicate with others which can be active while in-game) opposed to PCs which devotes its power to all running application whether it is a game, video or an internet explorer; but what most don't take into account is how much more powerful PC hardware has become from since the current games consoles (such as the PS3 and Xbox 360) were first released.

Also when most games console users look at using keyboard and mouse they automatically assume that it is too complicated to use with modern game titles such COD, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed and other games and for the few console users who do decide to play modern titles on PC some usually connect their game console controller (Xbox 360 seems to be the popular option from what I know) to play the game, but if console users were to use keyboard and mouse and adapt well to them they will find that the controls are more reactive and precise than normal game controllers and with the better graphics these games console users may never go back to their out-dated consoles. 

However, the key reason to why there are still console users is due to the fact that there are game console exclusive games (clearly a marketing strategy to keep people using these out-dated consoles) and presently the main controls for all PC games (regardless of whether or not they are ported from game console games) are keyboard and mouse (there are other controls available, but they don't apply to all games) where consoles have additional  exclusive controls with the PS3 having the PS-Move (more or less a rip-off of the Wii controllers) and the Xbox 360 having the Kinect (would definitely like to see this come to PC as it does have the potential to change gaming in many ways).

When it has come to trading most have also found that with console games people can buy, use and sell them where with PC games when you register the game you cannot sell the game so under most circumstance with PC games you would be stuck with the game once you decide to use it.

Overall what keeps the console market alive these days are false assumptions such as a machine designed specifically for gaming would always be powerful than a machine that can do other things including game and also the past reputation of consoles being more powerful than PCs which has been out-of-date for a long time now; and then there is also the marketing strategies such exclusive products, constant and tough anti-piracy monitoring (which is why modern games consoles are registered to a network to keep taps on users) to prevent financial loss from pirated games and a trading culture where hard-copy games can be used and then sold again where others who buy the pre-owned game can use it on their console (directly opposed to the way of how PC games work).


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 11, 2011)

I'm now writing a bit on what consoles have OVER PC:

Depending on whom you are you might either see motion controlled games on the Xbox Kinect or PS3 Move and cookie-cutter, half-baked applications, or killer apps that are the cutting edge of gaming and give consoles the upper hand. Personally, I believe it’s the latter, however I can’t deny how much fun Wii Tennis is

I need to expand on that though, or at least add other advantages console gaming have

atm it's just how it's very simple to use (plug in disc and play)


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 11, 2011)

Something to add:

I have _heard_ Kinect will make it to PC so proof of concept there will be no difference in that aspect. Also if devs wrote and coded for Wiimotes, they can be applied to PC as well. They utilize bluetooth to connect the controllers and you can use a wireless sensor bar with PC.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

computers are NOT meant for gaming nor they are designed for gaming in the first place. consoles are meant for gaming. and no, no body knows about the inside of Xbox 360 and PS3, its all speculation and fake assumptions. the parts inside those consoles are mystery. computers are just for business use and studying.


----------



## Maban (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> computers are NOT meant for gaming nor they are designed for gaming in the first place. consoles are meant for gaming. and no, no body knows about the inside of Xbox 360 and PS3, its all speculation and fake assumptions. the parts inside those consoles are mystery. computers are just for business use and studying.



Shoo.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> computers are NOT meant for gaming nor they are designed for gaming in the first place. consoles are meant for gaming. and no, no body knows about the inside of Xbox 360 and PS3, its all speculation and fake assumptions. the parts inside those consoles are mystery. computers are just for business use and studying.



No offense: what are you smoking?


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.



The first software used in modern computers are games and word processors, so I don't get what you mean. Unless you are pertaining to the vacuum tube "computers", or the mechanical ones similar to the one pioneered by Pascal.

But then again the first "computer game" was actually played in such a machine, and not in one that is similar to our modern (digital) computer.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.



BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now that's a funny troll

Where is thy moderator


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.



Violating the law of physics? technology? WTTTTFFFF

Why aren't the computer made for gaming if there are plenty of games and hardware (video cards, controllers, accessories, etc... ?


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> computers are NOT meant for gaming nor they are designed for gaming in the first place. consoles are meant for gaming. and no, no body knows about the inside of Xbox 360 and PS3, its all speculation and fake assumptions. the parts inside those consoles are mystery. computers are just for business use and studying.





jacob90 said:


> in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> in fact, we are violating the law of physics and technology by playing games on our computers. thats why there are consoles. they are made to play games on.



Oh yeah, finally realized after doing some checking. The early consoles are considered as "family computers" or "entertainment systems", thus they are actually "computers" for the family, or "systems" that provide entertainment. Yet they are not explicitly "made to play games on," as you assert.


Following that train of thought, playing games, music and videos, taking pictures/videos with your phones/smartphones are violations of the laws of physics and technology. Actually even texting (SMS) would be a violation of the laws of physics and technology too. The only thing you can do is call, and you can't save the numbers too, you have to write them or remember them, lest you violate the laws of physics and technology.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

entropy13: please read this article. its about how PC is losing to consoles. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/252579-28-console-losing

the violation on those technologies that u mentioned are not as large as on computers.

Microsoft promised us that their new console will be able to handle Movie like games. like Avatar. 

it will be 10x more powerful than PCs.

so finally with their new console, we will be able to play ultra realistic games. like in real life.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> entropy13: please read this article. its about how PC is losing to consoles. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/252579-28-console-losing



That's not an article, that's a long forum post of some member in Tom's Hardware. And it's from 2008.

I might as well post an "article" here from the 1980s, specifically during the "console gaming crash" and say "Consoles are losing."


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

Next generation Xbox 360 will have "Avatar" like graphics: 

sources: http://www.informalgadget.com/files/xbox_720_graphics_will_look_like_avatar.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim...ion_Xbox_to_Feature_Avatar_Like_Graphics.htmlA

do u even know what Avatar like graphics means?

it means the end of graphics. it cant be better than that.


----------



## Maban (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Next generation Xbox 360 will have "Avatar" like graphics:
> 
> sources: http://www.informalgadget.com/files/xbox_720_graphics_will_look_like_avatar.html
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim...ion_Xbox_to_Feature_Avatar_Like_Graphics.html



I thought you said you were fine using the outdated tech in your current console for the next hundred years? Or does "permanent solution" (your words) not mean permanent?

By the way, do you know what Avatar was created on? That's right, computers, not consoles.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Next generation Xbox 360 will have "Avatar" like graphics:
> 
> sources: http://www.informalgadget.com/files/xbox_720_graphics_will_look_like_avatar.html
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim...ion_Xbox_to_Feature_Avatar_Like_Graphics.htmlA
> ...





http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/ 

That would be the end of graphic if really exist and develops lol.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

I said that, actually MS next console will be a permanet hardware for games. since it can handle real life graphics. and no, Microsoft cant just lie.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> I said that, actually MS next console will be a permanet hardware for games. since it can handle real life graphics. and no, Microsoft cant just lie.



Ok, you are officially an idiot. 

Now, can we move one ?


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> I said that, actually MS next console will be a permanet hardware for games. since it can handle real life graphics. and no, Microsoft cant just lie.



Utopy, everything can be improved.

A old video card ad also said "real life graphics". Before tesselation.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> I said that, actually MS next console will be a permanet hardware for games. since it can handle real life graphics. and no, Microsoft cant just lie.



So Microsoft has to release a "next gen" console just to match current gen computers in handling real life graphics? 





Anyway, here's a more useful article. Actually it's a series of short interviews, Q&As:
http://asia.gamespot.com/features/6333387/the-state-of-pc-gaming/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

Derek: but how can u improve something that reached its end??????

because that will be exactly the case for MS new console. handling real life graphics.

the graphical evolution will reach its end by the introduction of MS new console. i promise u that.


----------



## Maban (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Derek: but how can u improve something that reached its end??????
> 
> because that will be exactly the case for MS new console. handling real life graphics.



You honestly think that the next console is going to be the most supreme piece of hardware to ever exist? End of line after that, everybody go home, there's nothing more to improve on?


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

yes, of course. because MS itself said that. go and find out. their new console will be like more than a super computer. it will have an unlimited power.


----------



## Maban (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> yes. because MS itself said that. go and find out. their new console will be like more than a super computer. it will have an unlimited power.



Are you seriously 5 years old? It's amazing you can type so well at that age.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Derek: but how can u improve something that reached its end??????
> 
> because that will be exactly the case for MS new console. handling real life graphics.



Let me break up something for you mate:
Console are computers, they use watered down versions of computer hardware. 
Now, if you understand basic math

A>B

A=computers
B=Consoles

so if computers can't render real world graphics (G)

G>A

Then

G>B

Got it ?


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Derek: but how can u improve something that reached its end??????



But the end is as far I know, unreachable, everything could be improved over time!

The end (IMO) would be my previous link "infinite graphics" + a Fully 3D display (volumetric?) + a display who have a higher DPI than the human eye could detect! (pixeless display)


Until these technologies are fully developed, I don't think the end is fully reached, it's nearer over time but it's an utopy, like the 100% efficient electronics


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

Derek: then u are denying what MS has said about their new console. right??????


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Derek: but how can u improve something that reached its end??????
> 
> because that will be exactly the case for MS new console. handling real life graphics.
> 
> the graphical evolution will reach its end by the introduction of MS new console. i promise u that.



Well it seems your definition here of real life graphics is it's "maximum" possibility. Your "prediction" of the next gen MS console being able to handle such real life graphics is akin to the several prior sci-fi predictions of the past. Don't forget that we're supposed to have significant space travel for the past decade already. Then there was also the "prediction" from the 1950s whereas traffic would be divided depending on the type of vehicles, highways are "multi-level" and underground, and the top level would be pedestrian only, by the 90s.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Derek: then u are denying what MS has said about their new console. right??????



MS could promise everything like any company but I don't think they created the "fully perfect" technology with "infinite fully real life" graphics! if this would be true, then MS would be god 

Anyway all will be seen after MS launches it, meanwhile, all is theory


I will not denying that  the new console would be much better than the 360, but going to say they would be the end of the graphic technology, it's like a computer that can process INFINITE data in 0 time unit.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> yes, of course. because MS itself said that. go and find out. their new console will be like more than a super computer. it will have an unlimited power.



How do you achieve ''unlimited power'' that scales with software of the future?

We can only develop the best things that we know of up to now, that's how technology works and why ''permanent hardware'' as you so put it can never exist. As long as software progresses which it naturally does because we find new tools and engines to deal with things, you can never achieve ''unlimited power'' where you never have to upgrade anything for the rest of your life.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

time will tell. just wait for ms new console. but if it turns out to be true, then i will buy that console and throw out my computer.

CDdude55: and who knows, maybe they can manage the impossible .

lets be positive.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 11, 2011)

Maban said:


> Them color coded cables sure are tricky to figure out eh?



For the color blind, yes.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> CDdude55: and who knows, maybe they can manage the impossible .




Then I will  to Microsoft everyday!


Short: That the new console would be better than the current ones, that is competely right, but I can't think they developed the definitive technology. Like all (or almsot all) human inventions, everything could be improved to some extent.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

maybe, but their new console will most likely deter most pc gamers to play games on PC. many pc gamers will be buying the new console.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> CDdude55: and who knows, maybe they can manage the impossible .



It takes possible solutions to achieve the once thought impossible.

You clearly can't articulate how such things would be possible, i already mentioned how it's not possible and that how hardware and software will have to progress to keep up with each other, there is no way to create a piece of hardware in say 2011 and have it still be relevant with software in 2050.

Im always open to possibilities that are reasonable and articulated, but it seems you don't understand the basics of how technology works and moves so instead you're basing what you're saying on old articles with no information or just assumptions with no merit.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> maybe, but their new console will most likely deter most pc gamers to play games on PC. many pc gamers will be buying the new console.



But the PC games and hardware will also improve and even **could** reach or surpass the new MS console capabilities! I don't think their new console would mark the end of PC games, it will be a competition product, but the PC companies will also improve them .


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> maybe, but their new console will most likely deter most pc gamers to play games on PC. many pc gamers will be buying the new console.



Don't expect anyone to put down their PC and rush to the new console. I started as a console gamer (back with my Atari, then NES, then Sega, then N64, then PS1, then PS2, then I finally got my first PC. I have a PS3, and it mostly sits now, I had used it to stream media, but now I built a HTPC for that. I don't want to hear about tech that never ages and can always render the newest things, I won't believe it till I see it. And I also prefer to use a keyboard/mouse for everything except racing games and fighters. And the fact that my computers performance is great, I will buy a next gen console, but I don't think I will rush out for it like I did a PS3.

And as far as PC gaming on the decline, what does BF3 pre-orders say about that. Or the fact that Steam is the 2nd largest game reseller (behind Gamestop), when they only sell games for one platform, and they don't sell WoW expansions and some other large titles some GS gets credit for those. Steam use and digital distribution have brought PC back to the gaming front.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> Derek: but how can u improve something that reached its end??????
> 
> because that will be exactly the case for MS new console. handling real life graphics.
> 
> the graphical evolution will reach its end by the introduction of MS new console. i promise u that.



It might be able to handle real life graphics, but likely only up to 1080p (the current standard). When we get higher resolution TVs, guess what, it will no longer be able to render graphics at that quality at those higher resolutions, therefore, it will need to be upgraded.

There is absolutely no such thing as future proof hardware, period.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 11, 2011)

Sit back and enjoy the ride jacob, you are in for a VERY long haul for a short period of time at TPU. Remember if devs would actually code and not port, pc gaming would/could be at least twice as "visual".

EDIT:

Look at "Hard Reset" the game you pm'd me. From a low quality video it looks amazing to me. I know I wouldn't play it though.


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

1Kurgan1: bf3 is only one game. and it will be very hard to run. that will be its downfall. most people dont like demanding games. and yet developers insist on it. but it will be their loss. at the end of the day, they will be the one who will moan about piracy because of their thoughtlessness.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> 1Kurgan1: bf3 is only one game. and it will be very hard to run. that will be its downfall. most people dont like demanding games. and yet developers insist on it. but it will be their loss. at the end of the day, they will be the one who will moan about piracy because of their thoughtlessness.



No, because the game still looks better than console games, even when you don't max it out. You do not have to max out a game to play it.


----------



## Frick (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> 1Kurgan1: bf3 is only one game. and it will be very hard to run. that will be its downfall. most people dont like demanding games. and yet developers insist on it. but it will be their loss. at the end of the day, they will be the one who will moan about piracy because of their thoughtlessness.



It will probably not be very demanding, unless you have to run it at huge resolutions with everything maxed out.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> 1Kurgan1: bf3 is only one game. and it will be very hard to run. that will be its downfall. most people dont like demanding games. and yet developers insist on it. but it will be their loss. at the end of the day, they will be the one who will moan about piracy because of their thoughtlessness.



But PC games are configurable! anyone can alter the quality to run on his/her hardware (up to a limit, don't ask to run it on a very very old and low end hardware, it is like asking to run a PS3 game on a PS1 console), there isn't need to run the game at super full max settings


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

JrRacinFan: actually Hard Reset is a very good game and graphically amazing.

and why u watch low q video then?

its ur problem then...


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> and why u watch low q video then?
> 
> its ur problem then...



Its called a 3mbps connection...

You already knew this. You also know Hard Reset is a PC only shooter right?


----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

of course. then why dont u go somewhere that u can watch high q video instead of blaming the game thoughtlessly?

but no, u dont try to do that because your goal is to insult me and rejecting my claim that Hard Reset is such a good game.

u dont have good intentions.


----------



## Frick (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> of course. then why dont u go somewhere that u can watch high q video instead of blaming the game thoughtlessly?
> 
> but no, u dont try to do that because your goal is to insult me and rejecting my claim that Hard Reset is such a good game.
> 
> u dont have good intentions.



This makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 11, 2011)




----------



## jacob90 (Sep 11, 2011)

frick: what doesnt make sense?

im asking JrRacinFan nicely to go somewhere so he can have high speed internet to see Hard Reset video in high res. he should do that otherwise he insulted me. 

JrRacinFan: got that?


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/popcorn_yes.gif



I like that show, good thing it airs in a local channel (albeit quite delayed).


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 11, 2011)

It doesnt exactly amaze me how this turned into a trollfest - its Pc vs. Console. same argument like Mac vs Pc, theres always going to be haters, bashing and flamewars.

but what amazes me is the amount of stupidity in this thread. 

Technology will never stop evolving, Software will never stop evolving. the day we see a 'one-stop-shop' console option that will last for eternity, will be the day the whole of humanity is wipe off the face of earth in the blink of an eye, thus halting progress. 

Until that day comes. PC will continue to lead the way and push the boundaries forward. 

If Microsoft really made a console that 'unlimitedly' powerful. There would be no need for rooms and rooms of huge industrial servers, there would be no need for all the computers at NASA and the pentagon and there would be no need for a space ship the size of the Starship Enterprise Because everything can all be powered buy one 'super console' in a room.

as much as we would like for technology to progress where we can microsize everything and have a super computer then size of an earing thats not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, so just thinking about it is a waste of time.

As for Microsofts 'Miracle' console that will be the end of everything as we know it.

I'll believe it when i see it. I highly doubt it will be more powerful then the computers we have when its released, thats always been the case.


----------



## Frick (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> frick: what doesnt make sense?
> 
> im asking JrRacinFan nicely to go somewhere so he can have high speed internet to see Hard Reset video in high res. he should do that otherwise he insulted me.
> 
> JrRacinFan: got that?



He never insulted you, and he said that the game looks amazing.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> And as far as PC gaming on the decline, what does BF3 pre-orders say about that.



792,112 (X360/PS3)
457,888 (PC)

XBOX 360 alone has more pre-orders than PC.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 11, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> It doesnt exactly amaze me how this turned into a trollfest - its Pc vs. Console. same argument like Mac vs Pc, theres always going to be haters, bashing and flamewars.
> 
> but what amazes me is the amount of stupidity in this thread.



Most of the stupidity radiated from a single individual(jacob90), hence fighting ensued toward said stupidity.

To me this just looks like another classic example of a troll getting exactly what he wanted, a reaction.


----------



## Kreij (Sep 11, 2011)

Keep it civil, and don't take the bait guys.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Most of the stupidity radiated from a single individual(jacob90), hence fighting ensued toward said stupidity.
> 
> To me this just looks like another classic example of a troll getting exactly what he wanted, a reaction.



the cover is deceiving!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> of course. then why dont u go somewhere that u can watch high q video instead of blaming the game thoughtlessly?
> 
> but no, u dont try to do that because your goal is to insult me and rejecting my claim that Hard Reset is such a good game.
> 
> u dont have good intentions.



What are you talking about!? My intentions were not to flame you. Also, thanks for flamebaiting me. You're attempt to make me look like a jerk is not working. If you must, go ahead and PM me. You just took my post oppositely of what i was trying to say. 

EDIT:

Oh also, i wouldn't have a problem going somewhere else for my internet IF somewhere else was available in my area.


----------



## erocker (Sep 11, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> What are you talking about!? My intentions were not to flame you. Also, thanks for flamebaiting me. You're attempt to make me look like a jerk is not working. If you must, go ahead and PM me. You just took my post oppositely of what i was trying to say.



Don't fret Jr. jacob is a troll and has been here many times before. Report such people so we can take care of them quickly. 

Back on topic please.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 11, 2011)

erocker said:


> Don't fret Jr. jacob is a troll and has been here many times before. Report such people so we can take care of them quickly.
> 
> Back on topic please.



Oh it's not a problem. Me and him get along we have been PM'ing back and forth for the past week just chit chatting. You know me, I don't get mad or anything.



1Kurgan1 said:


> I would assume thats more on his taste of games rather than the graphics of the title.



You got it! I'm a platform & RPG gamer(i.e. SMB, Donkey Kong Country, Zelda) unless it's a shooter that catches my interest.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 11, 2011)

jacob90 said:


> 1Kurgan1: bf3 is only one game. and it will be very hard to run. that will be its downfall. most people dont like demanding games. and yet developers insist on it. but it will be their loss. at the end of the day, they will be the one who will moan about piracy because of their thoughtlessness.



I quoted you and responded about PC gamers solely, not just people who play a few games on PC, there is a difference. Much like I own a console, but don't consider myself a console gamer. True PC gamers aren't going to put their computer in the closet and rush out to pick up the newest console, probably because these people will have the hardware to run the games, and will want to see them for their true eye candy. Eye candy is what PC gaming is all about (why I don't think PC gaming is dying) and the people who have the hardware to play games maxed will want to still do so. Either way, like said BF3 and almost any other game out there will look better on Medium settings vs the console counterparts.



jacob90 said:


> JrRacinFan: actually Hard Reset is a very good game and graphically amazing.
> 
> and why u watch low q video then?
> 
> its ur problem then...



Jr didn't say the game looked bad because of the videos. He said even with the low quality it still looked good, but yet he probably wouldn't be interested. And I would assume thats more on his taste of games rather than the graphics of the title.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I quoted you and responded about PC gamers solely, not just people who play a few games on PC, there is a difference. Much like I own a console, but don't consider myself a console gamer. True PC gamers aren't going to put their computer in the closet and rush out to pick up the newest console, probably because these people will have the hardware to run the games, and will want to see them for their true eye candy. Eye candy is what PC gaming is all about (why I don't think PC gaming is dying) and the people who have the hardware to play games maxed will want to still do so. Either way, like said BF3 and almost any other game out there will look better on Medium settings vs the console counterparts.
> 
> 
> 
> Jr didn't say the game looked bad because of the videos. He said even with the low quality it still looked good, but yet he probably wouldn't be interested. And I would assume thats more on his taste of games rather than the graphics of the title.



I have a question. why do you think people choose LCD over CRT or Plasma?


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 11, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I have a question. why do you think people choose LCD over CRT or Plasma?



I chose to move to LCD simply for the field of view. Don't own plasma because small format plasma isn't very common. And I have owned many LCD, I know people complain about panel types, not even sure what mine are, but been happy with all of their color, some people are pickier than others though. Also for screen space, I use photoshop and illustrator a lot, it's hard to fit tool panels and images on one 4:3 screen.

Also I actually preferred my old 16:10 setup to my new 16:9, but sadly since "1080p" is all the craze all computer monitors are making the switch as well


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 11, 2011)

Makes me wish flat panel 16:9 monitors supported 2K, 3K and 4K resolution. Or 23" or so sizes which are 2560x1600 should be the norm instead of 1080p.
At least my CRT 1280x1024 is much better compared to my flat screen 20" 480i TV. But I'll also be watching HD DVDs and Blu-rays on this computer anyway. The GPU I'm buying supports 2560x1600 and makes me wish there were monitors available in this resolution with HDMI at 23" or so. As I mentioned in another thread, XPadder is great but keyboard and mouse is fine too. Except for my keyboard which is P/S2 and the keys are too slim.
But the monitor I'll be buying will be LCD/IPS hybrid again for movies too on it. Similar to Kurgan, one of my favourite films which I own the UK Blu-ray, I'll also be doing Photoshop and Illustrator on it.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

I was trying to make a point that graphics don't mean everything but nevermind


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 11, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I was trying to make a point that graphics don't mean everything but nevermind



Well it's the resolutions which matter. Why should the PC gamer community be limited to 1080p when maximising for a title?
Agree with you too. I still play games which I've owned since the mid-1990's and the early 2000's quite often. Sure many of them haven't aged very well, early polygonal titles, but a lot of them are still great to play.


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 11, 2011)

I can't even remember the last post I made now 

But yeah, I'm currently writing about how PC gaming has modding over console gaming


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> I can't even remember the last post I made now
> 
> But yeah, I'm currently writing about how PC gaming has modding over console gaming



does it?

Carmack said at Quakecon '11 the modding community isn't the same. not many developers release mod tools and if you have the talent why not create a game and sell it on the Apple store or Microsoft XBOX Live indie channel.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 11, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> does it?
> 
> Carmack said at Quakecon '11 the modding community isn't the same. not many developers release mod tools and if you have the talent why not create a game and sell it on the Apple store or Microsoft XBOX Live indie channel.


Depends how you define mods . . .

Not a lot stopping people from building their own modding toolkits, as they often do, or using any number of publicly available game engines.

AFAIK Carmack does not recognize professional hobbyists and free, as in beer.  (Nevermind, I was thinking of someone else.)


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 11, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> does it?
> 
> Carmack said at Quakecon '11 the modding community isn't the same. not many developers release mod tools and if you have the talent why not create a game and sell it on the Apple store or Microsoft XBOX Live indie channel.



I'd much rather buy a game retail instead of online distribution. But if I did make a title I'd distribute it through Steam and other online distribution sites. Of course it won't be available for Apple.
At least Carmack releases the code for tons of the titles he's worked on. If I ever had my dream company as a reality, I'd certainly have mod tools for the majority of titles and even suggest mods from myself and my employees. Only as a Pipe Dream, which of course made me play it again due to BioShock.


----------



## erixx (Sep 11, 2011)

of course he is ALL IRONY (in the classical sense, that is teaching us with the help of absurd and contradiction)

No need to worry or sell our PC hahahahaha


----------



## ctrain (Sep 11, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 792,112 (X360/PS3)
> 457,888 (PC)
> 
> XBOX 360 alone has more pre-orders than PC.



VG chartz, which I'm guessing is what you used, isn't accurate for PC numbers

it's been said a million times before and even by a BF3 dev.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

ctrain said:


> VG chartz, which I'm guessing is what you used, isn't accurate for PC numbers
> 
> it's been said a million times before and even by a BF3 dev.



3 days ago EA announced 1.25 million Battlefield 3 pre-orders.

548,517 (X360), 243,595 (PS3).


----------



## Kreij (Sep 11, 2011)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> If I ever had my dream company as a reality, I'd certainly have mod tools for the majority of titles



In my opinion, making the tools the devs used for game creation available to the modding community is the single biggest factor in the longevity of games today.
The cost to the developer to create the tools could be quite a lot, but should easily be able to made up for in continued sales over a longer period of time because of the publicity the outstanding mods bring to the game over an extended period of time.

There are still active communities for NWN, Morrowind, Oblivion, etc. These games are years old and if the modders were not around to keep them alive they would have faded into oblivion (no pun intended) a long time ago.

The only down side is if the mod community comes out with better mods than the DLC you still haven't release. That, however, in not the modders' fault. ;')


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 11, 2011)

Developers don't release the mod tools or SDK for the simple fact it will cut into their DLC cake.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 11, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 3 days ago EA announced 1.25 million Battlefield 3 pre-orders.
> 
> 548,517 (X360), 243,595 (PS3).



Well, it's a no-brainer that there are more gamers on consoles than there are on PC. However which of these 2 groups are more serious about gaming ? That's another question.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 11, 2011)

Kreij said:


> In my opinion, making the tools the devs used for game creation available to the modding community is the single biggest factor in the longevity of games today.



AMEN TO THAT.

some of my fondest memories of games like CoD:UO, CoD2, CoD:Mw was the mods and custom maps running on the servers.

I after MW1 was released, I didnt sleep for 2weeks because i was constantly playing it. after that initial 2 weeks i dropped the game entirely because I just got sick of stock maps. I even stopped joining in with my clan and doing scrims because I just couldnt stand the sight or thought of playing on a map that ive spent the last 24hrs marathoning.

then custom mods, maps and weapons came in, and i found a server that was dedicated to running custom maps and they had some greatest maps ever! they even modded the killstreak artillery strike into a massive meteor shower then later on a massive laser cannon which was just hilarious. It totally re-new'd my love for the game and i carried on playing it until World at war was released.

------

Im guessing Activision just dislikes that the community can come up with better content then they can so they deliberately lock us out of the game then charge us $10 for a shoddy map pack thats 80% made up of rehashed material albeit with a reskin and a few minor tweaks and changes here and there.


So in a sense the community is being punished for being too successful in their endeavour to make a game a better game.

devs shouldnt think negatively of modders and should show a huge interested and excitement about what sort of direction that  community can take their game in and what cool things they can bring to the game. Devs should challenge the modding community instead of punishing us. 

Most modders i know of just modded maps as a hobby and have no indepth or prior knowledge of making stuff with dev tools. unlike most of the dev team who are probably educated to quite a high degree in what their doing

but hey, If we dont get bored of their games within a year. no-ones gonna wanna buy the next edition right??? (Im refering to Activision knocking out 1 Cod game every year)


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 11, 2011)

shihabyooo said:


> well, it's a no-brainer that there are more gamers on consoles than there are on pc. However which of these 2 groups are more serious about gaming ? That's another question.



can I jump out of this reality like inception? bwonggggg

maybe the pre-orders for PC would be higher if EA wasn't such a dick about Origin.


----------



## spykerhond (Sep 12, 2011)

Tear your hearts out but lan without the internet is the main problem . ping is crap in some countries so they lan to forget. kill the lan in the new games and you take a knock off the market as people pirate to make up for the loss...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 3 days ago EA announced 1.25 million Battlefield 3 pre-orders.
> 
> 548,517 (X360), 243,595 (PS3).



So thats 457,888 PC pre-orders. More then the PS3 and close to the Xbox. Yeah PC gaming sure is dead.  Also once people see how shitty BF3 will be for the consoles compared to the PC I expect the sales to jump.


----------



## Kreij (Sep 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Developers don't release the mod tools or SDK for the simple fact it will cut into their DLC cake.



I mentioned that in the last sentence of my post above yours.
The truth is that it does not have to if the devleopers release DLC that is original, well done and worthy of the price they decide to charge for it.

The devs are at an advantage when it comes to new content as they have every single resource availalbe to them and also a gauranteed team of people working on it every day, as well as people who are initmately familiar with the SDK and tools (or should be).

The disadvantage that the devs have is that they have to conform to the requirements demanded of them and fit it into a timeframe for release. The modders do not have these restrictions. Many times I hear people say, "The mod community did better.". That may be true, but they are on their own timetable and agenda and can hold back the release of a mod for as long as they like to make sure it's near perfect.

I'm not defending or disapproving of any dev or mod group, just remining everyone that the playing field is not always level.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

jacob90 made this thread hilarious for a while there.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So thats 457,888 PC pre-orders. More then the PS3 and close to the Xbox. Yeah PC gaming sure is dead.  Also once people see how shitty BF3 will be for the consoles compared to the PC I expect the sales to jump.



People who buy it for Consoles are people who generally assume they need a super high end PC to run it, so they probably wouldn't move over to the PC version. They'd probably just sell the game.


----------



## Kreij (Sep 12, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> People who buy it for Consoles are people who generally assume they need a super high end PC to run it, so they probably wouldn't move over to the PC version. They'd probably just sell the game.



I disagree. I think the people who buy it for consoles just want to play it on their console which is more likely to be hooked up to a larger television and in the living room or somewhere more comfortable than at a computer desk.

I could be wrong.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 12, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I disagree. I think the people who buy it for consoles just want to play it on their console which is more likely to be hooked up to a larger television and in the living room or somewhere more comfortable than at a computer desk.
> 
> I could be wrong.



That's actually a lot more plausible then what i stated. lol


----------



## Kreij (Sep 12, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> That's actually a lot more plausible then what i stated. lol



Thanks CD. I LOL'd at your comment.

I could start a thread on why people who own both PCs and consoles would buy a console game ... but I really don't care.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 12, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I disagree. I think the people who buy it for consoles just want to play it on their console which is more likely to be hooked up to a larger television and in the living room or somewhere more comfortable than at a computer desk.
> 
> I could be wrong.



i own crysis 2 for the PS3 my desk is a foot or so from my bed. both my PC and PS3 are hooked upto a 50" plasma. Why did i get crysis for the PS3 instead of the PC? because i sit at my desk all day at night when i get home from work or on my days off when iv been busy i just lay in bed and game.  i dont want to sit at my desk anymore.


----------



## Sonicboom (Sep 12, 2011)

D.R.M crap consoles ports bugs in some p.c. games thats why


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I disagree. I think the people who buy it for consoles just want to play it on their console which is more likely to be hooked up to a larger television and in the living room or somewhere more comfortable than at a computer desk.
> 
> I could be wrong.



Which is what I don't really get.

It's like buying a gold-plated, comfortably padded seats covered in leather, (the living room) stock-engined Nissan Versa (the console) instead of a Nissan GT-R (gaming computer) that isn't gold-plated, just the "plain" version, with the seating it got from the factory (the computer desk).


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 12, 2011)

PC gaming is just as big, if not bigger than it was in the past.

It's just been surpassed by consoles.  Consoles are far more appealing to the masses than the amount of money a PC enthusiast spends on our hobby.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> PC gaming is just as big, if not bigger than it was in the past.
> 
> It's just been surpassed by consoles.  Consoles are far more appealing to the masses than the amount of money a PC enthusiast spends on our hobby.



actually, it hasnt been surpassed.


the thing everyone forgets is that while a specific game may sell higher on a console than on PC, PC games stick around for a hell of a lot longer - when the next console comes out, all the old games are worthless (with the exception of specific titles, seriously, backwards compatibility sucks on consoles) - whereas on PC, they're still playable.

so there always has been and always will be more gamers on PC - because there is simply more games to be played. they're just spread out more.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> actually, it hasnt been surpassed.
> 
> 
> the thing everyone forgets is that while a specific game may sell higher on a console than on PC, PC games stick around for a hell of a lot longer - when the next console comes out, all the old games are worthless (with the exception of specific titles, seriously, backwards compatibility sucks on consoles) - whereas on PC, they're still playable.
> ...



Also the Term HD gaming, meh, We been Gaming HD wise before the XB360/PS3 came out


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Also the Term HD gaming, meh, We been Gaming HD wise before the XB360/PS3 came out



my first 15" CRT was 1280x1024, which is above HD


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> my first 15" CRT was 1280x1024, which is above HD



15" LCD was 1024x768 which was above HD heh.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> 15" LCD was 1024x768 which was above HD heh.



HD is 1280x720 and above, so 1024x768 is not.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> HD is 1280x720 and above, so 1024x768 is not.



well they name TVs by the pixels on the Horizontal scale for HD so. but Ya the second monitor I had was 1280x1024


----------



## Drone (Sep 12, 2011)

> Why is PC gaming not as big as it once was?



Maybe this humankind is simply tired of all those endless war, terrorists, aliens, tough guys, horny chicks, zombies, "you-Mr-cool-guy-must-save-this-world-nao" games (I know I am). All those endless crysies, cods, bulletstorms and other mediocre things. Lol just like the end of 90s when everyone played Half-Life, CS and similar things while nobody gave a shit about Nightlong or Blackstone Chronicles. 

Drivers, incompatibilities, bugs, glitches, directx, opengl, amd, nvidia, intel, microsoft and so on ain't gonna make things easier either.

In Unreal/Quake 2 era almost everything could make anyone jump of joy and say "wow this is so kewl". Later things got worse when every time you see a new game you could say "Aww man I've seen these things before. Not again!".

The sad thing is everytime there was some revolutionary game which had a lot of new ideas and didn't look like any other game it was simply brought down to nothing with endless critical responses/negative reviews got underrated and totally forgotten. AOD, Boiling Point, Will Rock, MDK, ODT, Redneck Rampage, Hellfire (Diablo), Deus Ex 2 are just few of all those great but underrated games.

It's also sad that we never really had proper Doom and Quake series. Doom 2 looks like just new levels for Doom 1, Doom 3 didn't continue story either and Quake 2 got nothing to do with Quake 1. Quake 3 is a multiplayer. But even then ID games are always fun to play. I can't wait for DOOM 4 and Quake 5. 

Anywho ... entire gaming idea must be reinvented. I wonder how would quantum pc gaming look like. Real hair physics (lol) ? Perfect graphics, perfect gravity simulation and proper collision animations? I wish ...

/rant


----------



## Frick (Sep 12, 2011)

Drone said:


> Anywho ... entire gaming idea must be reinvented. I wonder how would quantum pc gaming look like. Real hair physics (lol) ? Perfect graphics, perfect gravity simulation and proper collision animations? I wish ...
> 
> /rant



All of that would be useless unless you put some actual content there, and that is what is lacking in the entire industry today imo.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

IDK, UT 3 came out on console first n that's what made that game lose its status compared to the first 3 Ut99-2003-2004, even modders at CHAOS discontinued support for UT3. N tell u truth I don't have any hardware troubles like i did my second machine with an Asus motherboard.



Drone said:


> Maybe this humankind is simply tired of all those endless war, terrorists, aliens, tough guys, horny chicks, zombies, "you-Mr-cool-guy-must-save-this-world-nao" games (I know I am). All those endless crysies, cods, bulletstorms and other mediocre things. Lol just like the end of 90s when everyone played Half-Life, CS and similar things while nobody gave a shit about Nightlong or Blackstone Chronicles.
> 
> Drivers, incompatibilities, bugs, glitches, directx, opengl, amd, nvidia, intel, microsoft and so on ain't gonna make things easier either.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drone (Sep 12, 2011)

Frick said:


> All of that would be useless unless you put some actual content there, and that is what is lacking in the entire industry today imo.



The first part of my post was about the lack of content. 

I don't think it'll change anytime soon. Big dudes with heavy guns, flashy explosions and chicks in ridiculous outfits still sell pretty well. Anniversary editions, remakes, re-re-re...-releases, dlc, exclusivities it all just milks their cash cows and nothing more. Today it's just a race. A race where everyone tries to push their shit as fast as they can with zero plot and tons of bugs. There ain't many games that have some real potential. But there are, and I hope they're gonna rise again. Oneday ...


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 3 days ago EA announced 1.25 million Battlefield 3 pre-orders.
> 
> 548,517 (X360), 243,595 (PS3).



Theres still a larger chunk of PC gamers who haven't pre-ordered BF3. I think out of all of TPU I have the 2nd most hours played (548 hours) and I don't even have BF3 pre-ordered yet. I will pre-order it when it comes down to the wire, a 2 day head start in beta isn't good enough incentive for me to get it on Origin, I'll wait till the very last moment to see if EA folds and puts it on Steam (even though I'm sure it will still require me having Origin, which I already have, and have games on). 

BC2 didn't come to Steam till like 3 weeks before it released, people didn't even know if it was going too, and there was no issue between EA and Valve at that point. So I still see plenty of opportunity for it to come to Steam, it just might only be a week or less before it actually releases. And I know numerous other people who are doing the samething I am doing, where as anyone for console who wants it, doesn't have anything to wait for, so they just went and tossed $5 down at Gamestop. So seeing the PC numbers only 100k behind the 360 (thats impressive for a supposed dying platform), at this point, I expect to see BF3 PC pre-orders surpass 360 in the last few days before the title releases.



Kreij said:


> I disagree. I think the people who buy it for consoles just want to play it on their console which is more likely to be hooked up to a larger television and in the living room or somewhere more comfortable than at a computer desk.
> 
> I could be wrong.



It's a mix of both. When talking to console gamers (friends) about computers and trying to convince them to have me build them a PC, I hear the sitting argument. But I also here a lot that they think they need a $1000+ PC to play anything. And I tell them that to play games at the detail setting that console play at, could probably build a tower that good for $300, and something that would play most games on mostly high settings for $500, they just seem stunned.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> IDK, UT 3 came out on console first n that's what made that game lose its status compared to the first 3 Ut99-2003-2004, even modders at CHAOS discontinued support for UT3. N tell u truth I don't have any hardware troubles like i did my second machine with an Asus motherboard.



Unreal Tournament 3 sold poorly because it wasn't very good. I want another Jazz Jackrabbit!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Unreal Tournament 3 sold poorly because it wasn't very good. I want another Jazz Jackrabbit!



Yes cuz it was a console port, remember console ports do poorly on PC, if it was the otherway around there wouldnt be a problem. UT 99/2004 was probably the best ones out of the series despite 99 not having any vehicles


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Theres still a larger chunk of PC gamers who haven't pre-ordered BF3. I think out of all of TPU I have the 2nd most hours played (548 hours) and I don't even have BF3 pre-ordered yet. I will pre-order it when it comes down to the wire, a 2 day head start in beta isn't good enough incentive for me to get it on Origin, I'll wait till the very last moment to see if EA folds and puts it on Steam (even though I'm sure it will still require me having Origin, which I already have, and have games on).
> 
> BC2 didn't come to Steam till like 3 weeks before it released, people didn't even know if it was going too, and there was no issue between EA and Valve at that point. So I still see plenty of opportunity for it to come to Steam, it just might only be a week or less before it actually releases. And I know numerous other people who are doing the samething I am doing, where as anyone for console who wants it, doesn't have anything to wait for, so they just went and tossed $5 down at Gamestop. So seeing the PC numbers only 100k behind the 360 (thats impressive for a supposed dying platform), at this point, I expect to see BF3 PC pre-orders surpass 360 in the last few days before the title releases.



I was trying to say pre-orders should be taken with a grain of salt.

Halo: Reach had 2m pre-orders and sold 8.6m copies
Gears of War 3 has 1.5m pre-orders and is projected to sell 8-10m copies
Modern Warfare 3 has 1.3m pre-orders and is projected to sell 25-30m copies.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Yeah, pre-order numbers always seem low. I'm not completely sure why though, most people I know pre-order, must be a lot of impulse buyers out there. But I just seen the comparison of platforms so figured thats what you were talking about rather than the total number.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 12, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> PC gaming is just as big, if not bigger than it was in the past.
> 
> It's just been surpassed by consoles.  Consoles are far more appealing to the masses than the amount of money a PC enthusiast spends on our hobby.



I don't really think PC gaming was surpassed by Console gaming...
Moving away from the US, EU and Australia, in the rest of the world we have 90% of PC games being pirated. So I think it is a lot bigger but not in a commercial point of view.



Kreij said:


> I disagree. I think the people who buy it for consoles just want to play it on their console which is more likely to be hooked up to a larger television and in the living room or somewhere more comfortable than at a computer desk.
> 
> I could be wrong.



I could agree with that, but, it is also connected with the games themselves.

For example in the PS3 I have FIFA11, I simply can't play it on the PC... On the PC I have the FPS games which are impossible to play in consoles (in my view of course)


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

the thing that always baffles me about console gamers, is that you can quite easily hook up a controller to a PC, the PC to your HDTV and do all the lazy gaming you want. i play plenty of console games from my bed with a cordless 360 controller.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the thing that always baffles me about console gamers, is that you can quite easily hook up a controller to a PC, the PC to your HDTV and do all the lazy gaming you want. i play plenty of console games from my bed with a cordless 360 controller.



you can't play exclusives or imports.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> you can't play exclusives or imports.



In much the same way as there are PC "exclusives."


Can you play your PS1 games on your PS3?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> In much the same way as there are PC "exclusives."
> 
> 
> Can you play your PS1 games on your PS3?



you can play them on PC thanks to emulators.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> In much the same way as there are PC "exclusives."
> 
> 
> Can you play your PS1 games on your PS3?



there are no PC exclusives anymore.

yes.



Mussels said:


> you can play them on PC thanks to emulators.



PS3 and XBOX 360 emulation is impossible.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> you can't play exclusives or imports.



Remember how I mentioned Hard Reset previously? That is to be an exclusive, PC only. I can understand your logic, but yet again PC games should be ported to consoles not the other way around. Poor poor coding and lazy devs.



BumbleBee said:


> PS3 and XBOX 360 emulator is impossible.



Not impossible, they would have to be written/launched in a virtualized environment, "VMWare"-esque.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> there are no PC exclusives anymore.



Agreed. Starcraft II, Shogun 2: Total War, etc. are figments of our imagination.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Agreed. Starcraft II, Shogun 2: Total War, etc. are figments of our imagination.



2 games! both which are a niche genre. the PC used to have a lot more exclusives.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Agreed. Starcraft II, Shogun 2: Total War, etc. are figments of our imagination.



i hallucinate starcraft II ever day.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the thing that always baffles me about console gamers, is that you can quite easily hook up a controller to a PC, the PC to your HDTV and do all the lazy gaming you want. i play plenty of console games from my bed with a cordless 360 controller.



yeah... but with the console you don't need to upgrade parts... it will last for more than 5years.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 2 games! both which are a niche genre. the PC used to have a lot more exclusives.



you can't say its a niche when you have millions playing them... its the same as saying WoW is a niche...


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> you can't say its a niche when you have millions playing them... its the same as saying WoW is a niche...



by millions you mean Korea  no it's not.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> yeah... but with the console you don't need to upgrade parts... it will last for more than 5years.



you certainly do need to upgrade. you need to replace the whole damn thing.


lets say you're a console gamer, and lets assume they do last 5 years - which isnt the case.

even if we stick with current gen, if you wanted accesss to all the current console games you'd need:

360 (with hard drive, not the 4GB model)
PS3
Wii

(and if we count portable:
PSP
nintendo 3DS)


each of them requiring their own unique hardware accesories - controllers, cables and so on, often costing more than the console itself.

then when the replacement comes out? throw it all away or put it in storage, because apart from the HDMI cables, you wont be able to reuse a single piece of it.



you may not need to upgrade the parts inside the console, but theres dozens of external accesories you need (Xbox 360 w/ hard drive, 4 controllers, kinect, headset, etc) that you're sure as hell upgrading along the way.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

if you don't have to spend a lot of money building a PC then why not spend $1200 on a PC and $300 on a console of your choosing.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 12, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> yeah... but with the console you don't need to upgrade parts... it will last for more than 5years.



Ok let's say you purchase a computer. Didn't go all out for this pc ($500), dual x16 slots 8GB ram quad core and everything. 5 years comes, cpu is still going strong but you want to play the latest titles, $200 gets spent for a video card.

@Mussels

There is ONE, just ONE, console that comes to mind with your post. Wii U, the next nintendo console on it's presumed specs as far as we know to this day.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 2 games! both which are a niche genre. the PC used to have a lot more exclusives.



Since when did "etc." become an insignificant word and does not count for anything?


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

Spoiler


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Since when did "etc." become an insignificant word and does not count for anything?



............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,

I hope your enjoying Railroad Simulator and Farmville


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> 2 games! both which are a niche genre. the PC used to have a lot more exclusives.



Your console has exclusive games? That's nice.

My PC has exclusive GENRES


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Your console has exclusive games? That's nice.
> 
> My PC has exclusive GENRES



that should be a commercial.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't played Railroad Simulator, although I have tried it before. I am playing Football Manager 2011 right now though. I stopped playing Farmville after it only took me less than a month to reach some level that took my father almost two months (with the help of his credit card) to reach. And it's "you're" and not "your."

I'm still wondering why you took the effort to type (or copy-paste?) a facepalm, when my question was perfectly legitimate, unless of course you have your own definition of "legitimate", or that for you, "etc." means something else?


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> I haven't played Railroad Simulator, although I have tried it before. I am playing Football Manager 2011 right now though. I stopped playing Farmville after it only took me less than a month to reach some level that took my father almost two months (with the help of his credit card) to reach. And it's "you're" and not "your."
> 
> I'm still wondering why you took the effort to type (or copy-paste?) a facepalm, when my question was perfectly legitimate, unless of course you have your own definition of "legitimate", or that for you, "etc." means something else?



if there was an alien invasion. I would be the woman in the resistance with a sense of humor that dies first 

whatever makes you happy.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 12, 2011)

Just realized something.



BumbleBee said:


> 2 games! both which are a niche genre. the PC used to have a lot more exclusives.



"Used to have a lot more exclusives"? Many of them are STILL exclusives! So long as your operating system can play them, or you can install them, they're still "current" PC exclusives in a sense.

I can still play Fallout 1 & 2, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Neverwinter Nights (and expansions), Red Alert, Age of Empires, Battle Realms, MechWarrior games, etc.

So the use of "used to have" is actually incorrect. They're still PC exclusives, as PC to consoles porting is rare then, and still rare now. Thus there are still a lot of PC exclusives since it at least spans a period coinciding with the years of the Windows operating systems.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> if there was an alien invasion. I would be the woman in the resistance with a sense of humor that dies first
> 
> whatever makes you happy.



just hit them with your mechanical keyboard until they give up and leave.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> just hit them with your mechanical keyboard until they give up and leave.



Or put her behind the wheel of a hummer, and she can plow right into then one at a time. we all know women cant drive!


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

Mussels said:


> just hit them with your mechanical keyboard until they give up and leave.



"Cherry Corporation from Germany welcomes you to Earth" <clunk>


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> that should be a commercial.



I liked it. Honestly I cant take credit for that one. It was a youtube comment of a PC guy trashing a Gears or War fanboy in a BF3 video thread. I found it pretty much perfect in every way.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

my job in the resistance would be to feed Mailman belts of ammo and doing Arnold impersonations "go back to Mars!"


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> my job in the resistance would be to feed Mailman belts of ammo and doing Arnold impersonations "go back to Mars!"



In a skimpy outfit I assume? Because that would be WIN!


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

if years of playing counter-strike taught me anything it's ALWAYS BE WEARING STILETTOS


----------



## Frizz (Sep 12, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> yeah... but with the console you don't need to upgrade parts... it will last for more than 5years.



Thus the reason why I feel like I've traveled back in time when I play games on my PS3 . Don't get me wrong though I love my PS3 but my PC comes first .


----------



## RoutedScripter (Sep 12, 2011)

you all should watch this video on 46 minute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEyxxpNQFIk

still i am not "defending" the consoles with this --- it just gives you how a good developers should treat the 2 different  markets and hopefully in good co-existance. There is no doubt that Consoles simply aren't meant to be hardcore competitive gaming machines - it's all PC.



the guy that asked the question is Dave Oshry


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Irony has it aswell that Emulation of Old games is better on PC than consoles


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Irony has it aswell that Emulation of Old games is better on PC than consoles



retro gamers don't use emulators.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> retro gamers don't use emulators.



No, they wear their jelly shoes and play Sonic on their Sega Genesis.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> retro gamers don't use emulators.



reason i use emulators is cuz i own the original games n i cant take all my old toys with me being military, so the Laptop and PC do the same only better than the newer consoles at playing older games


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 12, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> No, they wear their jelly shoes and play Sonic on their Sega Genesis.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

I'd rather have one of these


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> by millions you mean Korea  no it's not.


well, I have SC2 and I have the north american version, and I entered online and there were about 2M online... so you have 2M online in the NA servers, and lets say 1.5M on the EU servers and about 4-5M in the Asian servers, I would say that's quite a lot of them...


Mussels said:


> you certainly do need to upgrade. you need to replace the whole damn thing.
> 
> lets say you're a console gamer, and lets assume they do last 5 years - which isnt the case.


Why do I need to replace the whole damn thing?
I still have the first version of the PS3, the one with card readers, and it is running nicely and I got it in 2007. I still have one of the controllers that came with it.


Mussels said:


> even if we stick with current gen, if you wanted accesss to all the current console games you'd need:
> 
> 360 (with hard drive, not the 4GB model)
> PS3
> ...


Don't need access to all the games, just the ones I like. Don't care about portable(also you can't really compare them with a pc).


Mussels said:


> each of them requiring their own unique hardware accesories - controllers, cables and so on, often costing more than the console itself.


Normally they come with the consoles themselves... 



Mussels said:


> you may not need to upgrade the parts inside the console, but theres dozens of external accesories you need (Xbox 360 w/ hard drive, 4 controllers, kinect, headset, etc) that you're sure as hell upgrading along the way.


why do you need 4 controllers?
did you say Kinect? do you have something like that on the PC, I think not...
Headset? I don't use one and if you have a pc you will have to buy an headset as well... 


JrRacinFan said:


> Ok let's say you purchase a computer. Didn't go all out for this pc ($500), dual x16 slots 8GB ram quad core and everything. 5 years comes, cpu is still going strong but you want to play the latest titles, $200 gets spent for a video card.


if you want to purchase a computer that will do 1080P on all games available right now and nice Frames Per Second you would spend:

200USD - CPU
150USD - MOBO
100USD - RAM
300USD - Graphics
+ HDD
+ PSU 
+ Case 
+ Keyboard 
+ DVDrom 
+ Mouse

and after 2-3 year you will have to upgrade Graphics at least...


random said:


> Thus the reason why I feel like I've traveled back in time when I play games on my PS3 . Don't get me wrong though I love my PS3 but my PC comes first .


my PC comes first as well... But when I play MGS4 or GT5 I don't feel that I traveled back in time...


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> if you want to purchase a computer that will do 1080P on all games available right now and nice Frames Per Second you would spend:
> 
> 200USD - CPU
> 150USD - MOBO
> ...



Don't agree at all, I bought my PII 1055t the day it came out for $150 and I don't have an issue with any game out there. I bought my 6950 for $280. I don't know much about Intel, with AMD you could easily get away with a 785G for well under $100, and you can also get 4GB of DDR3 1600 for like $30 - $40 for a pair thats got decent reviews. That setup would be way under oyur figure of cost and play things fantastically.

Either way, with your list of prices it looks like you are looking to build a PC to play things maxed out on the cheap, which you intend to compare to consoles that play things on far less than maximum settings. which makes no sense in my mind. You could easily go with a sub-$100 Quad, a 1GB 6950 ($240), 785G $70ish, 4GB DDR3 ($35ish). I honestly think in the end you could end up around $550 with a solid build, and with that 6950 1GB still play most things maxed, if you cut the cost and went with a cheaper vid card to play things on medium you might make it in under $500.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

you don't have to buy the XBOX 360 250GB bundle for $299.

XBOX 360 4GB bundle is only $199. you can buy a third-party hard drive (60, 120 or 250GB) for less than $45 on Amazon. 

Sony dropped the PS3 160GB bundle to $249 a couple weeks ago.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Don't agree at all, I bought my PII 1055t the day it came out for $150 and I don't have an issue with any game out there. I bought my 6950 for $280. I don't know much about Intel, with AMD you could easily get away with a 785G for well under $100, and you can also get 4GB of DDR3 1600 for like $30 - $40 for a pair thats got decent reviews. That setup would be way under oyur figure of cost and play things fantastically.
> 
> Either way, with your list of prices it looks like you are looking to build a PC to play things maxed out on the cheap, which you intend to compare to consoles that play things on far less than maximum settings. which makes no sense in my mind. You could easily go with a sub-$100 Quad, a 1GB 6950 ($240), 785G $70ish, 4GB DDR3 ($35ish). I honestly think in the end you could end up around $550 with a solid build, and with that 6950 1GB still play most things maxed, if you cut the cost and went with a cheaper vid card to play things on medium you might make it in under $500.



I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, _maybe_ you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, _maybe_ you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.



The PC prices you listed were for higher end hardware that would far out perform consoles. To play at console settings on a PC, you would be playing at low/medium settings, you could get away with a dual core and a $120 videocard. Could go much cheaper than $500 if you want to play at exact console settings, and the PC is not just a gaming platform, it's more than that. Plus count in the price of your TV vs the price of a monitor to see how it really balances out. Or $60 per game, and a market where game price doesn't drop as fast. Good example is BC2 can be picked up for $5 consistently, used on consoles, probably much more, and you have to then buy a $10 map pack addon.

You are comparing apples to oranges, or a kitchen knife to a swiss army knife, and then on top of that you are trying to pick hardware to play games at close to max settings and 60 fps, when consoles play at close to low settings and are capped at 30fps usually (and many only play at 720p). Not a great comparison.


----------



## Frizz (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, _maybe_ you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.



Don't forget a PC isn't only used for games, the hardware you buy will compliment everything else you do as well eg. video/music encoding and all that jazz, it maybe twice the price but it's potentially also cheaper than the XBOX360 and PS3 in their first year of launch which means it is affordable. You get what you pay for either way. I am assuming a $500 USD PC will still be able to melt people's brains with BF3 and it's awesome graphics.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox: you have to replace the whole thing, because when the next gen consoles (or even another 'brands') comes out, you cant play any of them.

PS4 comes out? new console, controllers, accesories, games, and so on. the same is not true for PC.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

it's not about the systems! it's about the games...


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> it's not about the systems it's about the games...



and those are restricted to specific systems, was my point. once those systems are outdated, you lose those games unless you maintain a collection of games consoles and accesories.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

he's said it a few different ways, and is obviously right.

as for your prices and estimations  skullfox, you're way off.  your argument would hold more weight with accurate numbers. still though, there's really no contest imo.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

you know what this forum needs? a Mortal Kombat scrub league. very therapeutic..


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> it's not about the systems! it's about the games...



We already went over that though. Consoles get some FPS games, some platform games, but honestly, almost all 360 exclusives make it to PC, so most of the only exclusives to talk about are on PS3, or very few I would personally be interested in on Wii (maybe none?). Where as PC's get MMO's (one of the most popular genre's in the last few years, most RTS titles, the best Racing sims (actually the best sims overall for any type), the best Indie games (and the most). So honestly I would still see that as a win in the PC column.

But it's not about games, or the systems. It's about everything as a whole, which is why we have talked about numerous subjects.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2011)

all the big console exclusives tend to be from genres done to death on PC anyway - oh look, another generic FPS shooter!


the real reason they dont come to PC is because they'd suck. consoles have a limited amount of games on them, so 'the best PS3 shooter' is out of a dozen titles or so... but when you compare it to the hundreds on PC, they fall short of what consumers think a AAA game SHOULD be.


maybe thats the problem - PC gamers just have higher standards, since we've got so much more freedom of choice.


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

That, and we're the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race.
Of course we'd have higher standards than the dirty, unwashed masses of console peasants!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

techtard said:


> That, and we're the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race.
> Of course we'd have higher standards than the dirty, unwashed masses of console peasants!


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

the Bee is a god gamer.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

the only way imo bee


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> The PC prices you listed were for higher end hardware that would far out perform consoles. To play at console settings on a PC, you would be playing at low/medium settings, you could get away with a dual core and a $120 videocard. Could go much cheaper than $500 if you want to play at exact console settings, and the PC is not just a gaming platform, it's more than that. Plus count in the price of your TV vs the price of a monitor to see how it really balances out. Or $60 per game, and a market where game price doesn't drop as fast. Good example is BC2 can be picked up for $5 consistently, used on consoles, probably much more, and you have to then buy a $10 map pack addon.
> 
> You are comparing apples to oranges, or a kitchen knife to a swiss army knife, and then on top of that you are trying to pick hardware to play games at close to max settings and 60 fps, when consoles play at close to low settings and are capped at 30fps usually (and many only play at 720p). Not a great comparison.



With that list I gave, can you play GTAIV or Crysis2 maxed out? I don't think so...
Also, I don't care if a PC is more than a gaming platform... we are talking about gaming.
Also, Don't care about TV and Monitor... consider we are playing in the same monitor/TV



Mussels said:


> SkullFox: you have to replace the whole thing, because when the next gen consoles (or even another 'brands') comes out, you cant play any of them.
> 
> PS4 comes out? new console, controllers, accesories, games, and so on. the same is not true for PC.



you still have your PS3 to play your games and whatever... as for the accessories, I would think that the consoles bring the controllers don't they?? 

also, I have lots of PC games I cannot play in win7... and there are many.



Mussels said:


> all the big console exclusives tend to be from genres done to death on PC anyway - oh look, another generic FPS shooter!
> 
> the real reason they dont come to PC is because they'd suck. consoles have a limited amount of games on them, so 'the best PS3 shooter' is out of a dozen titles or so... but when you compare it to the hundreds on PC, they fall short of what consumers think a AAA game SHOULD be.
> 
> maybe thats the problem - PC gamers just have higher standards, since we've got so much more freedom of choice.



Not all of them suck.... Fable2, MGS, GT, Forza, Halo, God of war, Haze, Lair, LittleBigPlanet, Motorstorm, Resistance...


here is a reasonable system I made in Newegg:

APEX PC-389-C Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
$29.99 

Western Digital Caviar Blue WD3200AAJS 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
$47.99	 

MSI N560GTX-M2D1GD5 GeForce GTX 560 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card
$189.99

Antec TruePower New TP-550 550W Continuous Power ATX12V V2.3 / EPS12V V2.91 SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE ...
$89.99

Microsoft Wireless Optical Desktop 1000
$26.99

Kingston 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model KVR800D2K2/4GR
$47.99

GIGABYTE GA-P45T-ES3G LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard
$79.25

Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6500 Wolfdale 2.93GHz 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor BX80571E6500
$79.99

and the total is around 600USD

I don't think a lower spec PC would play Crysis or GTA very well in 1080P, even in low graphics


anyway, staying in topic, PC gaming is bigger and better than it was... maybe not commercially.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> if you want to purchase a computer that will do 1080P on all games available right now and nice Frames Per Second you would spend:
> 
> 200USD - CPU
> 150USD - MOBO
> ...



And your point? There is still the functionality of the PC over the console....

What about the A8-3850+HD6670 pair in hybrid crossfire, 1080p on a console can be easily replicated in IQ with 1600x900 2xAA on a PC, so still a super strong video card would not be needed HD5770-esque.



JC316 said:


> Also doesn't help that the consoles caught up to PC's in the graphics department.



As I said before PC games should be ported to a Console NOT the other way around. Lazy devs!



SkullFox said:


> also, I have lots of PC games I cannot play in win7... and there are many.



Then dual boot Windows XP or keep some legacy hardware around.


----------



## boise49ers (Sep 13, 2011)

JC316 said:


> Also doesn't help that the consoles caught up to PC's in the graphics department.


Not the case anymore. They are having to scale down 
the games to be able to run on the console.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 13, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> As I said before PC games should be ported to a Console NOT the other way around. Lazy devs!



Agreed.
I Hate to have the power of my PC wasted on Poor Console ports


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2011)

skullfox:

a lot of those games you listed that dont suck, are pretty bland on PC. look at halo: Xbox owners think its utterly awesomesauce from god, but to PC gamers its just another shooter with aliens. the plot was average, the controls average, the only fun thing about it was the story (which i liked, btw).

lets not even bother with the price of the PC parts you listed, it can be done so easy to match a console. stick with 720p like they do on low textures, and a modest $500 PC can handle it with ease.


and then you went to win7... again, missing the point completely. ever heard of dual boot? my system can run XP just fine if i want older games, and VM's if i want even older than that.


your comments make it sound like you made a choice without thinking about it and now you're looking for reasons to defend that choice - not that you thought about it in advance, are explaining your thought process.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> the Bee is a god gamer.
> 
> http://i43.tinypic.com/x51g9i.jpg



Why do you have to own the consoles though?

I can rent the consoles but not high-end gaming computers.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 13, 2011)

It's hard for devs to program games for PC, because there are many PCs out there with different hardwares while consoles use the same hardware.

It's the same reason why WOW is more popular than others... the requirement to play it is super low.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> skullfox:
> and then you went to win7... again, missing the point completely. ever heard of dual boot? my system can run XP just fine if i want older games, and VM's if i want even older than that.


Have you heard about any system nowadays that can boot Windows 98?? no?? me neither that why I have lots of games catching dust.

Also, for some reason I can't install the XP on my system... he doesn't see my Raid 0 HDDs.



Mussels said:


> your comments make it sound like you made a choice without thinking about it and now you're looking for reasons to defend that choice - not that you thought about it in advance, are explaining your thought process.


LOLOL


kid41212003 said:


> It's hard for devs to program games for PC, because there are many PCs out there with different hardwares while consoles use the same hardware.
> 
> It's the same reason why WOW is more popular than others... the requirement to play it is super low.


Agreed...


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> H
> LOLOL



an excellent argument. i wont bother responding to you now, i think you made my point for me.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> an excellent argument. i wont bother responding to you now, i think you made my point for me.



I just said that because of what you said.... I made a choice without thinking... c'mon I just had to laugh....

--------

You have two paths for gaming:

1 - You want to play. No hardware problems, just plug the system in and play... - Buy a console
2 - You want to play with the best graphics. You also want versatility, but you should expect some problems with drivers/compatibility and so on. Also quite expensive. - Buy a PC


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

For older games, just run Dosbox, or a virtual pc if you can't dual boot. Problem solved.

Then you can play new games, older legacy games, and even run emulators for console games. You'll win everywhere.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> With that list I gave, can you play GTAIV or Crysis2 maxed out? I don't think so...
> Also, I don't care if a PC is more than a gaming platform... we are talking about gaming.
> Also, Don't care about TV and Monitor... consider we are playing in the same monitor/TV



Does a console play either of those games maxed out? I mean really, lets compare consoles play Crysis 2 on DX9 with low settings to a PC you want to play maxed out on DX11 for cheap, that makes absolutely zero sense. As I have said the entire time, stop comparing consoles to PC's playing the games at max settings, because consoles do not play maxed out. And what list are you talking about? And what do you consider maxed? A lot of console games don't even use AA, because it's a killer setting, I believe with dropped AA a 2GB 6950 could play either of those maxed. But thats beyond the point, compare them on equal settings, and on equal settings you can build a cheap PC, also I forgot, are you posting this from your console? If not, then why doesn't it matter that PC's do more?

And I do care about monitor, simply because, I have a $650 TV and my PC monitor only cost $300, it's a massive difference.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> Have you heard about any system nowadays that can boot Windows 98?? no?? me neither that why I have lots of games catching dust.
> 
> Also, for some reason I can't install the XP on my system... he doesn't see my Raid 0 HDDs.
> 
> ...



Hey you're from Mozambique! I sent you money via western union to get your rich uncle out of jail and now I see you buying video games with it?!? WTF! I think I've been had!


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Hey you're from Mozambique! I sent you money via western union to get your rich uncle out of jail and now I see you buying video games with it?!? WTF! I think I've been had!



 incoming infraction for you?


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

Well, they are still falling for that e-mail scam in the future. At least in Deus EX HR!


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Does a console play either of those games maxed out?



GTA IV looks horrible on the PS3. Even FIFA 11 and NBA 2K11, compared to their PC versions. And those two aren't exactly known for their graphics. The difference are miles away, even my cousin's old and cheap computer can max out FIFA 11 and NBA 2K11 at a slightly higher resolution (1600x900) than a console and yet still looks better even with the "greater load." And that's with a 9500 GT.


----------



## Mr McC (Sep 13, 2011)

PC gaming is as big as it ever was in my living room.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> I just said that because of what you said.... I made a choice without thinking... c'mon I just had to laugh....
> 
> --------
> 
> ...



1. Actually consoles can have hardware problems as well and when they do can be quite expensive and harder to repair then just opening up a PC and replacing a part. Ever heard of the Red Ring of Death (RROD) or Yellow light of Death (YLOD)? Both my friends came running to me when their PS3 and Xbox 360 respectively both got those hardware malfunctions. They were pretty much SOL... had to fork out another $400... Could have bought an $800 PC that would have lasted them years. You'd hope they would learn their lesson.. but nope. 

2. Everything you say minus the you should expect drivers/compatibility problems and the expensive part is relative. For $100 bucks more I'd rather get a PC. Not to mention when consoles first come out... $600 for a PS3 isn't exactly cheap either.

Drivers are easy to obtain and usually most devices today are just plug and play. Plug it in and your good to go. Also what's with the compatibly? Just make sure what ever game/hardware you get is Windows 7 ready or supports your OS and bam... your good to go.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> You have two paths for gaming:
> 
> 1 - You want to play. No hardware problems, just plug the system in and play... - Buy a console
> 2 - You want to play with the best graphics. You also want versatility, but you should expect some problems with drivers/compatibility and so on. Also quite expensive. - Buy a PC



I'll fix it #1 for you.

1 - You want to play. No hardware problems, just go to a place that lets you rent consoles... - Rent a console

Considering the TVs are usually 23"-32", that's not a problem, and considering it's very cheap, you don't have to buy the consoles themselves and you save money for other expenses, like upgrading a PC that can do something else besides gaming for example. You save on electricity since the consoles and TV are not using your house's electricity but the establishment's.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 13, 2011)

It's been said...

Consoles, you buy a Ps3 it will play any Ps3 game, it's a few hundred dollars and they look great.

People go to Walmart and buy an Emachine and then go buy Starcraft 2 and complain it doesn't play it, so then they go to the geek squad and cry and get told hundreds of dollars worth of upgrades and then go nope, no way, not putting more money into upgrading a system than the system cost in the first place.

Not to mention most households only have 1 computer. Most households have more than 1 tv.

Again we come into a cost thing.
To expand on the cost more, you buy a computer capable of playing most games decently $1500 call it... Well that's a Ps3 and a LOT of games.

Another thing to consider is console games mostly support 2 sometimes more players at once, not true with most pc games not utilizing the same system.

Physical size and the honestly I find that a lot of people don't even know that PC's can play some pretty sick games... They just have no knowledge to the fact.

I find personally that console games are generally complete and fairly bug free on release... When's the last time you could say the same about a big PC title...

Lastly, there is a still a large group of people in this world who are totally against even owning a computer, mostly due to a lack of knowledge or simply being scared of the concept of owning one from all the horror stories about identity theft etc doing around, I have countless amounts of customers who ask me to block facebook on their systems for their childrens safety... Some we are talking about high school students..



> 2. Everything you say minus the you should expect drivers/compatibility problems and the expensive part is relative. For $100 bucks more I'd rather get a PC. Not to mention when consoles first come out... $600 for a PS3 isn't exactly cheap either.



I would LOVE for you to build me a system for $100 over the cost of a PS3 with anywhere near the graphics ability, don't forget I'm going to need that to play Blu-ray, the other half of the problem.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

kid41212003 said:


> It's hard for devs to program games for PC, because there are many PCs out there with different hardwares while consoles use the same hardware.
> .



Yeah, you see the devs of ancient has thought of that. They have an Option/Settings sub-menu in the game's menu to solve that 




TheMailMan78 said:


> Hey you're from Mozambique! I sent you money via western union to get your rich uncle out of jail and now I see you buying video games with it?!? WTF! I think I've been had!


:shadedshu
Would've done you better if you helped your country out of it's debts.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Why do you have to own the consoles though?
> 
> I can rent the consoles but not high-end gaming computers.



I haven't been able to lease a console in my area since the 16-bit era. it's cheaper to own than lease. 50% of Netflix subscribers stream through consoles and the PS3 doubles as a Blu-ray player so they have other uses.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I haven't been able to lease a console in my area since the 16-bit era. it's cheaper to own than lease. 50% of Netflix subscribers stream through consoles and the PS3 doubles as a Blu-ray player so they have other uses.



plus over the 6 years they have existed it's easy to pick one or another up spending less than $300 total. i didn't own all on launch.  i didn't own any in their first 3 years. still got enjoyment at less than 1/2 price...


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I haven't been able to lease a console in my area since the 16-bit era. it's cheaper to own than lease. 50% of Netflix subscribers stream through consoles and the PS3 doubles as a Blu-ray player so they have other uses.



Not lease, rent. It's just $0.70 per hour, and you play on a couch and a big screen. Going to the cinema is more expensive, a Big Mac is more expensive. So long as they have the games you want to play, you don't have to buy those games.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Not lease, rent. It's just $0.70 per hour, and you play on a couch and a big screen. Going to the cinema is more expensive, a Big Mac is more expensive. So long as they have the games you want to play, you don't have to buy those games.



yeah.. like 15-20 years ago.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> GTA IV looks horrible on the PS3. Even FIFA 11 and NBA 2K11, compared to their PC versions. And those two aren't exactly known for their graphics. The difference are miles away, even my cousin's old and cheap computer can max out FIFA 11 and NBA 2K11 at a slightly higher resolution (1600x900) than a console and yet still looks better even with the "greater load." And that's with a 9500 GT.



Yeah, any console game just pales in comparison, even to PC's running pretty horrible videocards. I would say I could push better graphics on a ATI 3870 than either of the console can, and for a while I literally had a 3870 just sitting right on my basement floor, I think it actually got thrown away, probably could find one of those around for less than $50.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

niko084 said:


> Again we come into a cost thing.
> To expand on the cost more, you buy a computer capable of playing most games decently $1500 call it... Well that's a Ps3 and a LOT of games.


Funny, you can build a computer capable of running games at HD resolution (consoles resolution) For $500 ! $650 if you include a monitor, KB & mouse.



niko084 said:


> Another thing to consider is console games mostly support 2 sometimes more players at once, not true with most pc games not utilizing the same system.


LAN ? Internet ? And I believe most multi-platform online multiplayer games have servers that hold more players on PC than their Console servers.



niko084 said:


> I find personally that console games are generally complete and fairly bug free on release... When's the last time you could say the same about a big PC title...



*Most* PC title aren't buggy, it's just because of the many variables that occurs in the pc system, and the diversity of the parts and components, it's nearly impossible do design any software that can operate 100% with them. Though to be honest I think bugs are overrated. I've rarely incountered any in any game I played (aside from Cryostasis ). And most of the ones I did encounter had an update to fix them.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> yeah.. like 15-20 years ago.





What do you mean exactly? Are you saying the PS 3, Xbox 360, Wii, LCD TVs are 15-20 years old already?


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> What do you mean exactly? Are you saying the PS 3, Xbox 360, Wii, LCD TVs are 15-20 years old already?



she's saying you can't rent a console that cheaply any more, that era ended 15 years ago.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> What do you mean exactly? Are you saying the PS 3, Xbox 360, Wii, LCD TVs are 15-20 years old already?



Dammit Jim, why can't you understand? <shakes shoulders>

the video stores that haven't gone out of business no longer rent consoles out. maybe in the Philippines they do but not in Canada.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Dammit Jim, why can't you understand? <shakes shoulders>



Your a Doctor, not a Poolman? 

Either way, yeah I haven't seen consoles for rent in ages, I remember seeing N64's and PS1's for rent, but the price was insane.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

what about pool boy? I don't want Bob Vila to clean my pool.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Halo was pretty fun on PC, If not better than on Console



Mussels said:


> skullfox:
> 
> a lot of those games you listed that dont suck, are pretty bland on PC. look at halo: Xbox owners think its utterly awesomesauce from god, but to PC gamers its just another shooter with aliens. the plot was average, the controls average, the only fun thing about it was the story (which i liked, btw).
> 
> ...


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Halo was pretty fun on PC, If not better than on Console



i entirely agree with mussels.

the entire franchise has been mediocre shooters in terms of what pc gets, and yet are considered some of the best console games evar.

same goes for gears of war imo.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

the games are not revolutionary but are done well and people love them.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> the games are not revolutionary but are done well and people love them.



agreed,  but "a well-polished turd..."

and groupthink is not the best quantifier of quality.  not that i am, but just saying "people love it" doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i entirely agree with mussels.
> 
> the entire franchise has been mediocre shooters in terms of what pc gets, and yet are considered some of the best console games evar.
> 
> same goes for gears of war imo.



I liked Border Lands. Machine guns worked the best on bugs lol


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

digibucc said:


> agreed,  but "a well-polished turd..."
> 
> and groupthink is not the best quantifier of quality.  not that i am, but just saying "people love it" doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.



tell me some exclusive FPS on PC that reinvented the wheel in the last 5 years.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> I liked Borderlands. Machine guns worked the best on bugs lol



LIES! The shotgun works the best on the bugs! At least the armored ones. Can't wait for Borderlands 2. But I can since it won't be released until next year. Excellent co-operative play and makes me wish Hard Reset also had the same.



BumbleBee said:


> tell me some exclusive FPS on PC that have reinvented the wheel in the last 5 years.


I can't and I'd have to look on MobyGames. Crysis doesn't and never should count. It's more blatant eye-candy compared to a title I'd actually want to play.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> tell me some exclusive FPS on PC that reinvented the wheel in the last 5 years.



Minecraft (for starters ), The Dota clones (League of Legends remains one of the best F2P games out there), iRacing (track laser scanning is amazing), The entire MMO genre in the last 5 years. I can't think of any more right off the top of my head for now, but for consoles the only one I can't really think of is Little Big Planet.

But it's not about revolutionary games only. It's about fun factor, game content, and level design. Halo to me was only fun in multiplayer, which honestly any half way decent game with a bunch of friends is going to be fun.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

i'll give you Minecraft but it's not exclusive anymore it's coming to XBOX 360 with Kinect support 

Sony has a couple MMO and more on the way (DC Universe, The Agency, Dust 514, MAG, Final Fantasy XIV), Microsoft Game Studios is working on a couple.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Minecraft (for starters ), The Dota clones (League of Legends remains one of the best F2P games out there), iRacing (track laser scanning is amazing), The entire MMO genre in the last 5 years. I can't think of any more right off the top of my head for now, but for consoles the only one I can't really think of is Little Big Planet.
> 
> But it's not about revolutionary games only. It's about fun factor, game content, and level design. Halo to me was only fun in multiplayer, which honestly any half way decent game with a bunch of friends is going to be fun.



I think you missed the FPS part.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> tell me some exclusive FPS on PC that reinvented the wheel in the last 5 years.



i might just go back and think about that,but regardless, it's about subjective opinion and expectations.

we saw the original doom era, we saw counter strike era, and the half life era as well...  we know how good a game CAN be. so when we see a game like Halo or Gears being touted as #1, we can't help but roll our eyes in disgust as it's really very bland compared to what could have been done with good sci fi story-lines and today's technology.

consoles gamers are used to crap.  what are the best every console games?  now measure them solely on depth and originality.  and now compare that to the history of pc games.

even if it's 1:1, there were simply more pc games and so more were original unique and ... good.

and exclusivity and FPS are unnecessary modifiers anyway.  especially without how many series started on pc and sold their souls.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

digibucc said:


> consoles gamers are used to crap.  what are the best every console games?  now measure them solely on depth and originality.  and now compare that to the history of pc games.
> 
> even if it's 1:1, there were simply more pc games and so more were original unique and ... good.
> 
> and exclusivity and FPS are unnecessary modifiers anyway.  especially without how many series started on pc and sold their souls.



Hey now, some of the best games ever made is SNES games! Console games too used to be better.


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Hey now, some of the best games ever made is SNES games! Console games too used to be better.



i know, and i thought of that as well, even felt bad writing it 

but the numbers stand. simply because of cost of licensing & carts nowhere near as many games were released on consoles as pcs.  and i still remember a lot of movie tie in crap games and crap "insert popular title here" clones.

plus, it wasn't until consoles became more like pcs (disc drives, ram, pc video cards) that they exploded as they have now.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> LIES! The shotgun works the best on the bugs! At least the armored ones. Can't wait for Borderlands 2. But I can since it won't be released until next year. Excellent co-operative play and makes me wish Hard Reset also had the same.
> 
> 
> I can't and I'd have to look on MobyGames. Crysis doesn't and never should count. It's more blatant eye-candy compared to a title I'd actually want to play.



ok the first Rare Machine gun, certainly worked on the heavy armed bugs, the largest spiders in the game not so much lol


----------



## CyberDruid (Sep 13, 2011)

As an infrequent gamer my theory is PC gaming is a PITA. Every single time I install a game I have to do something to make it run right. I have to patch it, add code so it will run with my machine properly, update the video driver, or roll it back, and then after about an hour or so of this tedious crap I have just about lost interest in even trying out the game.

On the PS3 I turn it on and I play a game.

The other obvious factor is the cost...a decent rig is going to cost 3 times what a console costs, and then there is the constant pressure to upgrade the rig...but amazingly a console still plays games great year after year with no hardware upgrade.

And finally there are the games...which most serious gamers I know say play better on console. Plus console online gaming is usually part of a social network...you are playing with friends you've had for ages...they all have accounts, you can all talk and text and game seamlessly. 

PC gaming is just a PITA for me.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> i'll give you Minecraft but it's not exclusive anymore it's coming to XBOX 360 with Kinect support
> 
> Sony has a couple MMO and more on the way (DC Universe, The Agency, Dust 514, MAG, Final Fantasy XIV), Microsoft Game Studios is working on a couple.



You can't discount the RTS fighter genre, it's booming. And iRacing's laser scanning technology is just insane, far ahead of anything else. And yep MMO's are starting to creep to consoles, though DC was better on PC, haven't heard of The Agency, Dust looks interesting but its dependant on the PC game, MAG sucked (COD clone on a larger scale, sold my copy 2 days after I bought it), and FF was bad as well even on PC.



Frick said:


> I think you missed the FPS part.



I couldn't think of any real exclusives except Americas Army.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 13, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> I was making a PC to play in the same resolution as the HD consoles, but, maybe you can make a PC with 500USD, but, that is already 2 times more than the 160Gb PS3. Not to mention that next year you would have to make an upgrade to play the next Crysis/GTA/whatever.



surely you ment HD console(ps3) as i dont personally count the 360s upscaled mediocraty to be hd


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok the first Rare Machine gun, certainly worked on the heavy armed bugs, the largest spiders in the game not so much lol



The fire, electric and even acid damaging revolvers work great also. Mostly since my shotgun proficiency in Borderlands is greatest out of all weapons.

One thing I'm greatly disliking about video games for multi-platform is the unnecessary dumbing down titles receive. At least it isn't the same for The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series. Well, includes many other titles from companies which they support the modding communities.

EDIT: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 1 Trilogy?


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> tell me some exclusive FPS on PC that reinvented the wheel in the last 5 years.



Battlefield 2

Far Cry

Counter Strike: Source

Crysis 

F.E.A.R: First Encounter Assault Recon

....


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Battlefield 2
> 
> Far Cry
> 
> ...



Crysis? Look at my earlier post on it.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> I think you missed the FPS part.



hows about Crysis imho the ver coming to consoles truly wouldnt be sellable the other way ie if pc owners got such a shity looking port with no bushes they simply wouldnt buy it

and in all i dont know how they have the nerve to call that crysis



BumbleBee said:


> don't know how many PC Games there are in total but Steam only has 1300 titles in it's library. the Playstation 2 has over 10,000. for every year of PC Gaming there has been multiple consoles with large libraries.



im quite happy to not be able to play some games ie harry potter 1 - 99 others would be nice gran tourismo for 1 but hey thats why pc owners love emulators you have them on consoles yes  no cos sony took it out


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i might just go back and think about that,but regardless, it's about subjective opinion and expectations.
> 
> we saw the original doom era, we saw counter strike era, and the half life era as well...  we know how good a game CAN be. so when we see a game like Halo or Gears being touted as #1, we can't help but roll our eyes in disgust as it's really very bland compared to what could have been done with good sci fi story-lines and today's technology.
> 
> ...



how many FPS use regenerating health and 2 weapon slot mechanics? who pioneered that? Halo which also had large maps and vehicles but so did Tribes.

I don't know how many PC Games there are in total. Steam has over 1300 titles in it's library. the Playstation 2 has over 10,000 titles in it's library and for every year of PC Gaming there has been multiple consoles with large libraries.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Crysis? Look at my earlier post on it.



I did, and I agree. But you see, Crysis did raise the bar for PC games standards. At least graphics wise. I know the engine was nothing but a big resource hog, but you can't disagree the eye candy was something. And tbh the game has lots of people that liked both the story and the gameplay


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> and for every year of PC Gaming there has been multiple consoles with large libraries.



what?  i think you mixed that part up.



BumbleBee said:


> how many FPS use regenerating health and 2 weapon slot mechanics? who pioneered that? Halo



halo was the first to pioneer dumbing down fps?



BumbleBee said:


> I don't know how many PC Games there are in total. Steam has over 1300 titles in it's library.



by the simple fact that you need a license to program for any console you should understand there are less games for them.



Frick said:


> no, no no nonononononon



nice try but you need more of an argument than "no".  you are still arguing about a moot point anyway, exclusive or not the sheer number of pc games makes the difference.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Battlefield 2
> 
> Far Cry
> 
> ...



BF2: No. BF1942 on steroids.

Far Cry: Not sure. Like Delta Force with jungles.

CS:S: Nonono. Just no.

Crysis: Far cry with graphics.

FEAR: I have not played this game so I wouldn't know. ^^



theoneandonlymrk said:


> hows about Crysis imho the ver coming to consoles truly wouldnt be sellable the other way ie if pc owners got such a shity looking port with no bushes they simply wouldnt buy it
> 
> and in all i dont know how they have the nerve to call that crysis



Nonononono. It was actually a pretty good game (and I even enjoyed the second game, but mostly for the story, which isn't that good but as I played the first game I kinda wanted to know what would happen next) but not groundbreaking. Maybe graphicswise but that is not important.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Nonononono. It was actually a pretty good game (and I even enjoyed the second game, but mostly for the story, which isn't that good but as I played the first game I kinda wanted to know what would happen next) but not groundbreaking. Maybe graphicswise but that is not important.



 while i see your point and i too enjoyed both games, for me part of their greatness is the odd moment of beauty amongst it all and genarally good graphics(plus good games) i have since stopped halfway through crysis 2 because ive decided to save the rest till my spec is better effin amd tut

luckily dues ex human rev is mint< big thumbs up 90/100


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

so if PC gaming is such a pain why do you own the machine you have?



CyberDruid said:


> As an infrequent gamer my theory is PC gaming is a PITA. Every single time I install a game I have to do something to make it run right. I have to patch it, add code so it will run with my machine properly, update the video driver, or roll it back, and then after about an hour or so of this tedious crap I have just about lost interest in even trying out the game.
> 
> On the PS3 I turn it on and I play a game.
> 
> ...


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> so if PC gaming is such a pain why do you own the machine you have?



Because he can?


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> BF2: No. BF1942 on steroids.
> 
> Far Cry: Not sure. Like Delta Force with jungles.
> 
> ...




BF2, BF1942.
Both are PC exclusives, so who cares ?

CS:S
Don't know what you have against this one. But it was counterstrike that set the standards for online multiplayer fps games (that doesn't have lasers rifles and flak cannons)

Crysis:
Well, Far Cry didn't have nano suits, didn't have alien robots, didn't have stealth abilities, and many other gameplay mechanisms that set Crysis apart. True the tropical island settings is similar, but that's just about it :/. And even if they were the same, both of them are PC exclusives. So, my original point is still valid.

F.E.A.R
Not something I'de recommend playing under any form of influence. Specially ac!d


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> You can't discount the RTS fighter genre, it's booming. And iRacing's laser scanning technology is just insane, far ahead of anything else. And yep MMO's are starting to creep to consoles, though DC was better on PC, haven't heard of The Agency, Dust looks interesting but its dependant on the PC game, MAG sucked (COD clone on a larger scale, sold my copy 2 days after I bought it), and FF was bad as well even on PC.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't think of any real exclusives except Americas Army.



I like Dawn of War, Civilization and EVE.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> I did, and I agree. But you see, Crysis did raise the bar for PC games standards. At least graphics wise. I know the engine was nothing but a big resource hog, but you can't disagree the eye candy was something. And tbh the game has lots of people that liked both the story and the gameplay



CRYSIS is one of those games, similar to Duke Nukem took almost Forever, which I don't have any desire to play whatsoever.



Frick said:


> BF2: No. BF1942 on steroids.
> 
> Far Cry: Not sure. Like Delta Force with jungles.
> 
> ...



F.E.A.R. is alright for a time killer. Haven't played Counter-Strike: Source yet. Red Hawaiian shirt protagonist can't act himself out of a wet paper sack.

EDIT: I do love the Civilization and Total War series quite a lot.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Battlefield 2
> 
> Far Cry
> 
> ...



CS:S is the only exclusive and seriously you think it reinvented the wheel?


----------



## digibucc (Sep 13, 2011)

pcs invented the fps, so i'm not sure exactly what your argument is.  you're trying to direct everything around this one point that doesn't matter.  

the fact that development has turned to crap on both counts doesn't lend to the argument either way.

halo was released at a time when we had rainbow six 3 (last of the real ones), hmm..., as well as games like warcraft 3, rise of nations, and galactic civilizations, not to mention SIM CITY 4!!.  those were all at the time pc exclusive and blew halo out of the water.  so if you want to compare at least keep it in the ballpark.

ninja edit.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> CS:S is the only exclusive and seriously you think it reinvented the wheel?



BF2 (BF2 Modern Combat is not BF2), Far Cry, and Crysis are all exclusive (though Crysis is finally comping to consoles). And FEAR was exclusives for a year then 360 got it, and 2 years until PS3 got it (and FEAR was an amazing game).


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't understand all that fuss about FarCry.  Jungles in Boiling Point were more crispy and picturesque. The reason why Boiling Point wasn't a Farcry killer is quite beyond my ken.

In the last 5-6 years there wasn't that many innovative FPS titles. Boiling Point could be the one if it didn't flop. I bet it was the only game ever without loading screens. From middle 2000s I think I like Halo series nothing really new there but dialogues and its plot makes it really interesting and its vehicles were really good with easy controls and all. Stalker was another interesting title. Sin episodes could be great if they hadn't discontinued them, No One lives forever with its sense of humor was also really good, Serious Sam 2 wasn't too bad either. Prey, Unreal 2, Quake 4, Deus Ex 2 also were fine and they deserved more than they got. 

I didn't like fear series at all and think that's what an FPS shouldn't look like (I suppose I'm the only one here who thinks that), I didn't like cod series either and all its clones.

Wolfenstein drew my attention. I like it much more than RTCW. The game was kinda cliche (got many things from other shooters) but it still was fun. Boss battles were quite interesting and not annoying at all. Gotta replay the game once again.

Haven't played new Deus Ex, Aliens vs Predator and Duke Nukem. Maybe later if I'll have more time and interest. Also totally skipped crysis - insufficient funds to build a monster for that.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> CS:S is the only exclusive and seriously you think it reinvented the wheel?



As 1Kurgan1 stated, only F.E.A.R isn't an exclusive (my mistake  ).
And as for CS:S, the game itself reinvented nothing, but the series as a whole set the standard for most fps mp games. It introduced tactical gameplay into the scene. Before Battlefield came into action. And around the time FPS was only about run/jump/shoot with Unreal & Quake.


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> As 1Kurgan1 stated, only F.E.A.R isn't an exclusive (my mistake  ).
> And as for CS:S, the game itself reinvented nothing, but the series as a whole set the standard for most fps mp games. It introduced tactical gameplay into the scene. Before Battlefield came into action. And around the time FPS was only about run/jump/shoot with Unreal & Quake.



Not really. System Shock, Abyss, Zero Tolerance and Redneck Rampage - all old games from that era - were beyond run-and-gun concept. These games brought many new elements to the fps genre


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> Not really. System Shock, Abyss, Zero Tolerance and Redneck Rampage - all old games from that era - were beyond run-and-gun concept. These games brought many new elements to the fps genre



Ah, sry, I must've been 3 or something when System shock was released. And that's the only name I recognized because I played (or rather, watched someone playing) the sequel. Can't say I've ever seen the other titles you've mentioned.
 to old school gamers !

But, defending my original point, I wasn't talking about the fps genre as a whole, I was talking about multiplayer ones. To be more specific, online multiplayer ones.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> As 1Kurgan1 stated, only F.E.A.R isn't an exclusive (my mistake  ).
> And as for CS:S, the game itself reinvented nothing, but the series as a whole set the standard for most fps mp games. It introduced tactical gameplay into the scene. Before Battlefield came into action. And around the time FPS was only about run/jump/shoot with Unreal & Quake.



The sequels/remakes were no revolutions. Evolutions yes, but reinventing the wheel? Not so much.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> The sequels/remakes were no revolutions. Evolutions yes, but reinventing the wheel? Not so much.



Very well, I stand corrected, CS:S reinvented nothing. _But_ the series proves that PC is where the FPS genre was made, evolved, and matured. Consoles had nothing to do with FPS except ruining it.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Very well, I stand corrected, CS:S reinvented nothing. _But_ the series proves that PC is where the FPS genre was made, evolved, and matured. Consoles had nothing to do with FPS except ruining it.



Now people will argue the case for Halo which was essentially a dumbed down version of Quake\UT\etc.  I can't wait until Second-Hand Sales become to the Consoles market what Piracy was to the PC market--A Scapegoat that is.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2011)

bumblebee: the first FPS with regenerating health, was call of duty 2. sorry, halo copied it from another game.

(cant remember if #1 had health regen or not, sorry)


again, people just mistake 'first game to do X on console' with 'first game to do X'


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2011)

Mussels said:


> bumblebee: the first FPS with regenerating health, was call of duty 2. sorry, halo copied it from another game.
> 
> (cant remember if #1 had health regen or not, sorry)
> 
> ...



actually UT 99 had that capability


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 14, 2011)

And think about it: the reason why more and more games switched to a health-regen system is because placing heals all over a map is downright annoying.  You never know if you placed too much or not enough.  It's just a big problem all around that's been there since the first video games.  It's actually quite shocking it wasn't until the late 1990s that they finally decided to go with the self-healing routine.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 14, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And think about it: the reason why more and more games switched to a health-regen system is because placing heals all over a map is downright annoying.  You never know if you placed too much or not enough.  It's just a big problem all around that's been there since the first video games.  It's actually quite shocking it wasn't until the late 1990s that they finally decided to go with the self-healing routine.



A large reason was because that system was part of the challenge.  A Game where you can just hide and easily regain your health is significantly less challenging than one that treas health as a finite resource.


----------



## Reefer86 (Sep 14, 2011)

Ports >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end thread


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 14, 2011)

Drone said:


> I don't understand all that fuss about FarCry.



2004: 7 years ago, for it's time the graphics were amazing. I mean , back then Radeon x850's & 6800GT's were the norm for an enthusiast gamer....

http://techreport.com/articles.x/7679/8

Sorry, I don't see your point. I still think the graphics look decent in-game.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 14, 2011)

xenocide said:


> A large reason was because that system was part of the challenge.  A Game where you can just hide and easily regain your health is significantly less challenging than one that treas health as a finite resource.


Good point.  It wasn't until more advanced AIs that would seek out a camper that regening could be used.  They effectively go hand-in-hand.  Early games had virtually nothing for an AI.  Either they always targetted the player or they did something random.


----------



## Drone (Sep 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> http://techreport.com/articles.x/7679/8
> 
> Sorry, I don't see your point. I still think the graphics look decent in-game.



Well my point didn't change and I say that Xenus has better graphics, take a look 

http://www.gamersgate.com/img/screenshots/DD-XENUS2/185332_68_medium.jpg

http://www.whitegold-game.com/files/Gallery//scr3/_m/WG_Akula.jpg

Xenus didn't have loading points (entire game was one whole giant location) and unlike farcry it had "save anywhere" system. And btw it was built and compiled much earlier than farcry, so no - for that time farcry wasn't the game with the most lush graphics. Yes it was much more popular than Xenus but being more popular doesn't mean being better


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 14, 2011)

The PC ruled the roost in game sales until one game showed up: Halo.

Halo is what sold the original Xbox and what got sales going for MS. PS3 never was much more then a beefed up PS2 that most people didn't go for. Xbox brought not only games for the consoles (because of sales) but also games for PS3.

If you check the stats (forgot who does that research), you'll see that the year before Xbox came out, PC game sales were at current console levels. A year or two after Xbox release, PC games sales dropped through the floor.

Halo sold the Xbox. Without it, we could be looking at a different world as far as sales of games (in general) go.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 14, 2011)

Drone said:


> Well my point didn't change and I say that Xenus has better graphics, take a look
> 
> http://www.gamersgate.com/img/screenshots/DD-XENUS2/185332_68_medium.jpg
> 
> ...



I have heard of Xenus, but that wasn't the point. Xenus was still a PC exclusive and for EITHER title for it's time, amazing. If you took my post as derogatory, it wasnt meant to be taken that way. Sorry I didn't add a "" or a "" but now I will 

Carry on


----------



## Drone (Sep 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> I have heard of Xenus, but that wasn't the point. Xenus was still a PC exclusive and for EITHER title for it's time, amazing. If you took my post as derogatory, it wasnt meant to be taken that way. Sorry I didn't add a "" or a "" but now I will
> 
> Carry on



Don't worry everythings fine  I mean Xenus could get more buzz about it but unfortunately it didn't. People said it's too buggy I didn't encounter even a single bug there lol. If it didn't flop who knows maybe it'd even get released for xbox but I bet it'd got butchered right to the bone because no way xbox could handle it. The game is really big, without loading points lol it's a whole city in Columbia it has day and night cycles and your protagonist can sleep, for example if you want a nighttime just select sleep until midnight (some missions require nighttime) and you can go anywhere and do anything. You can try to play this game it's pretty cheap and even for today standards it's pretty kickass (graphics and system requirements  My point was that if there were more cool pc games like this even all the haters couldn't drag pc gaming down.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 14, 2011)

digibucc said:


> she's saying you can't rent a console that cheaply any more, that era ended 15 years ago.



You mean it only ended selectively in certain countries. 




BumbleBee said:


> Dammit Jim, why can't you understand? <shakes shoulders>
> 
> the video stores that haven't gone out of business no longer rent consoles out. maybe in the Philippines they do but not in Canada.



Which is partly (mostly) your fault, considering how consumption-driven you are, even though you're in debt. You in the general sense of the "first world person."


I guess Asia-Pacific is still the "best" place for gaming. We have access for games from both Japan and the West, we have gaming computers, you can rent consoles, you can play on arcades, etc.


----------



## SkullFox (Sep 14, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Does a console play either of those games maxed out? I mean really, lets compare consoles play Crysis 2 on DX9 with low settings to a PC you want to play maxed out on DX11 for cheap, that makes absolutely zero sense. As I have said the entire time, stop comparing consoles to PC's playing the games at max settings, because consoles do not play maxed out.


man you are the one speaking about maxed out, not me... I made a PC that can run all games at 1080P and thats it!!


1Kurgan1 said:


> And what list are you talking about?


I was referring the the list of PC parts I made...


1Kurgan1 said:


> And I do care about monitor, simply because, I have a $650 TV and my PC monitor only cost $300, it's a massive difference.


Hell, I use the same Monitor for my PC and My PS3 so thats why I don't care about TV/Monitor difference


TheMailMan78 said:


> Hey you're from Mozambique! I sent you money via western union to get your rich uncle out of jail and now I see you buying video games with it?!? WTF! I think I've been had!


 


AphexDreamer said:


> Drivers are easy to obtain and usually most devices today are just plug and play. Plug it in and your good to go. Also what's with the compatibly? Just make sure what ever game/hardware you get is Windows 7 ready or supports your OS and bam... your good to go.


yeah... right... 
than you have graphic corruption on one game or your controllers don't work with a certain game or the game just randomly crashes and you have to wait a million years for a patch.
Face it, its way more likely for you to have a problem with Hardware/Drivers/Compatibility on a pc than you having problems like this on Consoles


Shihabyooo said:


> Would've done you better if you helped your country out of it's debts.





Shihabyooo said:


> LAN ? Internet ? And I believe most multi-platform online multiplayer games have servers that hold more players on PC than their Console servers.


LAN, Internet.... More computers... more cost... complex logistics 
in a PS3 you can play with 7 friends... 


digibucc said:


> i might just go back and think about that,but regardless, it's about subjective opinion and expectations.
> we saw the original doom era, we saw counter strike era, and the half life era as well...  we know how good a game CAN be. so when we see a game like Halo or Gears being touted as #1, we can't help but roll our eyes in disgust as it's really very bland compared to what could have been done with good sci fi story-lines and today's technology.
> consoles gamers are used to crap.  what are the best every console games?  now measure them solely on depth and originality.  and now compare that to the history of pc games.
> even if it's 1:1, there were simply more pc games and so more were original unique and ... good.
> and exclusivity and FPS are unnecessary modifiers anyway.  especially without how many series started on pc and sold their souls.


can you give me PC games better than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Gran Turismo 5 or Final Fantasy XIII or Final Fantasy XII or MotorStorm?


theoneandonlymrk said:


> surely you ment HD console(ps3) as i dont personally count the 360s upscaled mediocraty to be hd


Point taken 


Mussels said:


> bumblebee: the first FPS with regenerating health, was call of duty 2. sorry, halo copied it from another game.
> 
> (cant remember if #1 had health regen or not, sorry)


#1 didn't have regen health... you had to get the 1st aid packs...


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

Mussels said:


> bumblebee: the first FPS with regenerating health, was call of duty 2. sorry, halo copied it from another game.
> 
> (cant remember if #1 had health regen or not, sorry)
> 
> again, people just mistake 'first game to do X on console' with 'first game to do X'



Looking around, it seems Tribes 1 did it first, which is November 1998, far far far before Halo. Either way I agree.



SkullFox said:


> man you are the one speaking about maxed out, not me... I made a PC that can run all games at 1080P and thats it!!



Then why did you ask if that build can play those games maxed out? And you don't need a $200 processor or $300 videocard to play at 1080p, or $100 RAM (based off your original price list with no details). If you want to play at console like settings, you can build a much worse computer and still play at 1080p just fine. Like I said, most consoles are even frame capped to 30 fps.



SkullFox said:


> I was referring the the list of PC parts I made...



The original price list only? Or the list you made in the bottom of your post (after you had already responded to me?)



SkullFox said:


> Hell, I use the same Monitor for my PC and My PS3 so thats why I don't care about TV/Monitor difference



Some people do that, but a majority don't. I can think of 2 people I know that do this (in person). And probably 30+ that just them on separate tv/monitors.


----------



## Shihab (Sep 14, 2011)

SkullFox said:


> yeah... right...
> than you have graphic corruption on one game or your controllers don't work with a certain game or the game just randomly crashes and you have to wait a million years for a patch.
> Face it, its way more likely for you to have a problem with Hardware/Drivers/Compatibility on a pc than you having problems like this on Consoles



Graphics corruption ? I'd take a game with decent graphics and a *very small* risk of having "graphics corruption" rather than a watered down version with crap textures and no risk of corruption.
Game randomly crashes ? Aside from glitches -that even console games aren't immune of- It's rare for a game to crash under normal circumstances. If all the components are working probably and the sys requirements for the games are met any game has a very slim chances of crashing. Nearly all the game crashes I heard of happened because if a bad OC/system not meeting the requirement/ or even a bad HDD. 
As for patches taking "a million years", I don't know where you got that from. Deus Ex: HR patch was released 3 days after it was released.

I agree you don't have that problem with consoles, but at what cost ? Dropping backward compatibility. Can you run FFVII disc on a PS3 ? Or a Zelda Ocarina of Time on a Wii ? I can still play the original Deus Ex and Doom on my PC !



SkullFox said:


> LAN, Internet.... More computers... more cost... complex logistics
> in a PS3 you can play with 7 friends...



To play through internet you'll need more consoles. And multiplayer games on a single console comes at the cost of splitting the screen. The only exception is arcade style fighting games. And the ones on PC can also be played on a single machine. SF:IV ?



SkullFox said:


> can you give me PC games better than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Gran Turismo 5 or Final Fantasy XIII or Final Fantasy XII or MotorStorm?



MGS and GT are one of the _few_ console originals that can still be called a decent video game.
As for Final Fantasy, jRPGs has been on consoles since for ever. There has been a few ones on PC, but the sub-genre is mostly console bound. even so, Final Fantasy has been heading for the gutters since Square merged with Enix. FFXII might have restored some of the former glory of the series, but it still far from reaching the levels of FFVI, VII & VIII.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

Agreed, I don't like MGS or FF personally, but GT and Motorstorm are great. But as far as racing goes iRacing > GT. And I would say Dirt 3 is as good as MS, but it's cross platform. And FPS + RPGs are what own on PC, compare any of the Betheseda games on PC to console (modding makes such a large difference) or Bad Company 2 (soon to be BF3) from PC to console.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 14, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> I agree you don't have that problem with consoles, but at what cost ? Dropping backward compatibility. Can you run FFVII disc on a PS3 ? Or a Zelda Ocarina of Time on a Wii ? I can still play the original Deus Ex and Doom on my PC !



Generally speaking, when failure occurs on Consoles it means the system is dead and needs to be replaced--RRoD etc.  I remember reading the hardware failure rate on Xbox 360's was well over 50%, which is pretty sad.  The PS3 is not much better actually, but it wasn't nearly as high.  So assuming over the 7 years the 360 has been out, you've had to replace it twice, you're left paying $600-800 on the same damn hardware over several years.  Doesn't seem to great a deal to me.

As for backwards compatability goes; You actually can play any PS1 games on any PS3.  You cannot however play any PS2 games on anything but 1st-Gen PS3's.  Ocarina of Time is also available on the Wii Market\Arcade, but that involves buying the game again.  One cannot deny the PC Platform is excellent when it comes to backward compatability, but you definitely have to work at it with most older titles.



Shihabyooo said:


> As for Final Fantasy, jRPGs has been on consoles since for ever. There has been a few ones on PC, but the sub-genre is mostly console bound. even so, Final Fantasy has been heading for the gutters since Square merged with Enix. FFXII might have restored some of the former glory of the series, but it still far from reaching the levels of FFVI, VII & VIII.



FFX was the last real FF game in my mind.  XII was a major disappointment, and XIII was laughable.  FFXIII was literally interactive eye-candy.  The story was trash, the characters sucked, and the gameplay was just bland.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> actually UT 99 had that capability



Unreal uses health packs? and I said pioneer not invent.


----------



## erixx (Sep 14, 2011)

This thread finally needs the truth to be told: PC still rock because consoles do not have the needed keys, simple and clear:


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

I can't think of anything funny to say about eHarmony 

and Call of Duty 2 came out 4 years after Halo.

Deus Ex had health regeneration if you bought the augment.

Halo: Combat Evolved was the first FPS to remove the health bar or percentage all together and now it's a standard.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

CoD 2 might have came out 4 years later, but Halo 1 came out 3 years after Tribes 1, which had regenerating health, and Tribes 1 came out 1.5 years before Deus Ex 1.

As far as health bars, do you mean in multiplayer? Because I remember playing Medal of Honor 1 and not seeing health bars. All of these games still have internal health bars anyways, you just can't see them.


----------



## Drone (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Halo: Combat Evolved was the first FPS to remove the health bar or percentage all together and now it's a standard.



Halo does have health bars which can be replenished by medkits. Force shield recharges by itself


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

there is a mode the PC pioneered in Unreal Tournament 2003 that is now standard. anyone want to guess what it is?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> there is a mode the PC pioneered in Unreal Tournament 2003 that is now standard. anyone want to guess what it is?



big head mode?


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

Mussels said:


> big head mode?


----------



## Shihab (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Halo: Combat Evolved was the first FPS to remove the health bar or percentage all together and now it's a standard.





Spoiler













Spoiler











You were saying ?




BumbleBee said:


> there is a mode the PC pioneered in Unreal Tournament 2003 that is now standard. anyone want to guess what it is?



That rugby like mode similar to Sabotage modes in CoD ?


----------



## xenocide (Sep 14, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> That rugby like mode similar to Sabotage modes in CoD ?



You're thinking of Bombing Run.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

you're right it was the shield that regenerated but the sequel Halo 2 in 2004 had regenerating health.

you mean bombing run? no. Cliffy introduced Horde mode in a bonus pack but he called it Invasion.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Sep 14, 2011)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112972-Blizzard-Says-No-to-Console-Cash-in-Games

and it's true - PC games just have a really high standards that the current mainstream publishers just aren't realizing it.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 14, 2011)

Consoles r just superior.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 14, 2011)

kid41212003 said:


> Consoles r just superior.



That's like saying there is still a Santa Claus, alot of people beleive it but doesn't make it totally true nor false.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> That's like saying there is still a Santa Claus, alot of people beleive it but doesn't make it totally true nor false.



Exactly, but still Santa Claus is still making lotta money regardless of the truth.


----------



## Drone (Sep 14, 2011)

So are consoles


----------



## digibucc (Sep 14, 2011)

Drone said:


> So are consoles



they weren't actually talking about santa clause.  thanks for the subtext


----------



## Shihab (Sep 14, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> That's like saying there is still a Santa Claus, alot of people beleive it but doesn't make it totally true nor false.





kid41212003 said:


> Exactly, but still Santa Claus is still making lotta money regardless of the truth.



Interesting analogy. It's a pity though that there are alot of console gamers who don't _stop believing_ when they grow up. :shadedshu


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 14, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Interesting analogy. It's a pity though that there are alot of console gamers who don't _stop believing_ when they grow up. :shadedshu



My whole point; neither are superior to the other. Hence "true nor false". They both have pros and cons.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

the whole reason I bought a console was to take a break from all the harassment and cheating.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/08/medium_hacker-02.jpg
> 
> the whole reason I bought a console was to take a break from all the harassment and cheating.



I honestly rarely come across hackers in any of the FPS's I have ever played. And consoles now days have hackers as well. And harassment is even worse, someone kills you, sends you a private message making fun of you.

That argument kind of reminds me of Mac users saying they bought a Mac because they were afraid to get a virus on a PC.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

I have only had a couple incidents on consoles. it's much worse on PC for me. I can't even use my microphone because someone will give me a hard time. people use aim bots and speed hack all the time


----------



## digibucc (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I have only had a couple incidents on consoles. it's much worse on PC for me. I can't even use my microphone because someone will give me a hard time. people use aim bots and speed hack all the time



you're kidding right?  just looking at the demographics that doesn't make any sense. 

it also goes against my experience.  though i am male i HAVE played online with women before and of those times it was much worse on console.  i suppose it depends on the games but still, that is very surprising to read.


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

no i'm not kidding. when EA announced Battlefield 3 would have 64 players online everyone was jumping out of their seat but all I could think about was how many people you can enrage and frak with


----------



## Shihab (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> no i'm not kidding. when EA announced Battlefield 3 would have 64 players online everyone was jumping out of their seat but all I could think about was how many people you can enrage and frak with




Stay away from my PC servers !


----------



## BumbleBee (Sep 14, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Stay away from my PC servers !



that won't be too hard with a warm welcome like that


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I have only had a couple incidents on consoles. it's much worse on PC for me. I can't even use my microphone because someone will give me a hard time. people use aim bots and speed hack all the time



You use BF3 as an example, but with 550 hours into BC2, I feel I have a pretty good amount of seat time to make a judgement on hacking in the BF games, and I have seen very little. As far as mic's, I hate open mic's so I just turn them off. Either way, small maps and hacking is going to be worse, the larger it gets, the less head shot scripts are going to matter, you can't head shot a guy out of a tank. And larger maps will involve more vehicles, any hacker I see playing BC2 plays Arica Conquest, or any other map with no vehicles.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> Unreal uses health packs? and I said pioneer not invent.



Ok, UT99 has the ability to regen health for players but at a slow rate along with First Aid packs, n then health vials/kegs.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ok, UT99 has the ability to regen health for players but at a slow rate along with First Aid packs, n then health vials/kegs.



That was only available if you had the G.O.T.Y. edition and it was a mutator. Players had to pick up items called an Ankh or something which either gave them a speed, HP or shield & other random bonusses, but it wasnt on the standard UT99 game


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> That was only available if you had the G.O.T.Y. edition and it was a mutator. Players had to pick up items called an Ankh or something which either gave them a speed, HP or shield & other random bonusses, but it was on the standard UT99 game



whole Point is health regen has been around since 99 if not earlier, nothing new about it


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> whole Point is health regen has been around since 99 if not earlier, nothing new about it



97' Got to read the whole thread  But could be earlier than that I'm sure.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> 97' Got to read the whole thread  But could be earlier than that I'm sure.



Ya which game, was it quake or something else?


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ya which game, was it quake or something else?



Tribes 1, FPS didn't originate too far before that, at least not in decent 3D, but it's possible one existed before that with it.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 27, 2011)

NVIDIA: PC Games Sales To Surpass Console Games Sales By 2014
http://www.gamefront.com/nvidia-pc-games-sales-to-surpass-console-games-sales-by-2014/


----------



## Widjaja (Sep 27, 2011)

If broadband continues to cost less and less there will be more PC game sales as well.
Here in New Zealand Broadband is stupid expensive for what little we get and the performance of it is much left to be desired compared to most other countries.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 27, 2011)

Widjaja said:


> If broadband continues to cost less and less there will be more PC game sales as well.
> Here in New Zealand Broadband is stupid expensive for what little we get and the performance of it is much left to be desired compared to most other countries.



but you kiwi's have some beautiful woman, Id be more inclined to spend less time in the basement, and actually go outside and attempt to chat to one of them


----------



## Widjaja (Sep 27, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> but you kiwi's have some beautiful woman, Id be more inclined to spend less time in the basement, and actually go outside and attempt to chat to one of them



Huh?
Those images you have been looking on the internet must have been photoshopped.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 27, 2011)

Here's the simple reason for consoles being popular:
1) Most people are not sufficiently knowledgeable or have the motivation and dedication to actually _build_ a gaming system.
2) Most people would rather have the _experience_ of gaming without having to deal with the technical hardware problems and puzzles that pop up with a gaming pc.  More fun time less crappy unhappy hardware and software problem solving time.
3) They don't really care about PC vs console, it's only important insofar as their defense for their choice, especially at the points when consoles make a leap in performance.
4) Consoles are much much cheaper than a gaming pc.

Less money to spend, and less time to spend configuring a computer = more money for other 'fun' things and more happiness in being technically ignorant


----------



## Mussels (Sep 27, 2011)

i think it comes down to the modern trend of 'i deserve everything, without making any effort to get it'


they want to play fun games with awesome graphics, but refuse to work for it. shit, i know people to whom connecting a HDMI cable is a chore and learning 'that bullshit' between 720p, 1080i and 'what the fuck is this 1366x768 crap'



people are ignorant and stupid, and refuse to change because they think everything in life should be easy. thats coming across in how the consoles are setup in the first place, and in the games (noob mode activated! health regen, no loss for dying, etc)


----------



## Jetster (Sep 27, 2011)

I think we all just grew up. And the new generation is lazy, stupid and spoiled with there PS3s and wireless controllers


----------



## Mr McC (Sep 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> people are ignorant and stupid, and refuse to change because they think everything in life should be easy...



Bad day at work?


----------



## Frick (Sep 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i think it comes down to the modern trend of 'i deserve everything, without making any effort to get it'
> 
> 
> they want to play fun games with awesome graphics, but refuse to work for it. shit, i know people to whom connecting a HDMI cable is a chore and learning 'that bullshit' between 720p, 1080i and 'what the fuck is this 1366x768 crap'
> ...



Amen brother. Amen.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 27, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Bad day at work?



more a trend i've noticed with my group of 'acquaintances' that i do not wish to call friends.




Frick said:


> Amen brother. Amen.



we dont have a hug emote, so


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> people are ignorant and stupid, and refuse to change because they think everything in life should be easy.


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 27, 2011)

Thread picked back up
I'm almost done with the article, just need a bit more on OnLive and whether it's good for the PC gaming industry


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 27, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> Thread picked back up
> I'm almost done with the article, just need a bit more on OnLive and whether it's good for the PC gaming industry



No its not. its just the same as consoles in a sense. latency between the gamer and the server will cause twitch games to be unplayable unless the whole network is overhauled


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 27, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> No its not. its just the same as consoles in a sense. latency between the gamer and the server will cause twitch games to be unplayable unless the whole network is overhauled



having to load even the game itself from the server side would cause major lag, best to have games on the machine itself than completely in cloud


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 27, 2011)

If you want it onlive to play social networking games like Farmville or internet checkers with your mate dave, then i think Onlive would be a good thing. I dont think ISPs would like it that youre hogging up all the bandwidth when you try to game on your days off from work. think off all the data that needs to be constantly streamed - Or at least this is the case in the UK.

Onlive are trying to launch here - you can buy any game you want from them for £1 apprently.


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 27, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> If you want it onlive to play social networking games like Farmville or internet checkers with your mate dave, then i think Onlive would be a good thing. I dont think ISPs would like it that youre hogging up all the bandwidth when you try to game on your days off from work. think off all the data that needs to be constantly streamed - Or at least this is the case in the UK.
> 
> Onlive are trying to launch here - you can buy any game you want from them for £1 apprently.



Yeah I'm gonna get Arkham Asylum for the quid 
It's cool, I can cover both sides of the argument, I still need to write about 100-200 more words
I played the trial for Arkham Asylum earlier and it didn't feel too bad
But whatcha said about lag is worth considering


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 27, 2011)

Maybe in countries like Asia where connection throttling is a hanging offense. but during peak hours here in the UK. playing games are gonna be baaaaaaaaaaaaaad


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 27, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Maybe in countries like Asia where connection throttling is a hanging offense. but during peak hours here in the UK. playing games are gonna be baaaaaaaaaaaaaad



What's the average internet speed here in the UK?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 27, 2011)

think average is about 5-6mb. If you paid for 20mb connection or fibre optics then maybe you get more. It depends really. Some days my connection runs at dialup speeds


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 27, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> think average is about 5-6mb. If you paid for 20mb connection or fibre optics then maybe you get more.



Ahh okay, just needed that info for my article
I don't know why I'm putting so much effort into it, it's the design that nets the most marks


----------



## erocker (Sep 27, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> What's the average internet speed here in the UK?





El_Mayo said:


> Ahh okay, just needed that info for my article
> I don't know why I'm putting so much effort into it, it's the design that nets the most marks



FYI, if you are writing an article you should really look up these facts so you can give a source. Internet forums don't really count.


----------



## El_Mayo (Sep 27, 2011)

erocker said:


> FYI, if you are writing an article you should really look up these facts so you can give a source. Internet forums don't really count.



It's for a Media A-Level course
Nothing serious 
People have been dropping mad links though, read through most of them
I WAS doing a web article, where I WAS gonna hyperlink all the sources, but it's print now, so don't have to


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 27, 2011)

El_Mayo said:


> Ahh okay, just needed that info for my article
> I don't know why I'm putting so much effort into it, it's the design that nets the most marks



Its all to do with the ISP really.

Some of them tend to throttle connections heavier then others.

I'm supposed to have an 8Mb connection but right now i can only download at 56k speeds. their peak period is also pretty retarded too. I used to be able to have a full connection around 9 or 10pm. Now it starts from 11am to 12am. Sometimes it lasts longer then 12am. a few nights ago i was still downloading at 5kb/s at 12.30am


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i think it comes down to the modern trend of 'i deserve everything, without making any effort to get it'
> 
> 
> they want to play fun games with awesome graphics, but refuse to work for it. shit, i know people to whom connecting a HDMI cable is a chore and learning 'that bullshit' between 720p, 1080i and 'what the fuck is this 1366x768 crap'
> ...



Oh man. I didn't think that attitude had reached Australia yet.



1Kurgan1 said:


> http://myeslfriends.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/computer-easy-button.jpg



 Preach it brother!



erocker said:


> FYI, if you are writing an article you should really look up these facts so you can give a source. Internet forums don't really count.



Thanks for the sig quote.


----------



## RevengE (Sep 28, 2011)

It's alot cheaper to buy a console. $300.00 Plus a few games, so $500.00, or, build a massive gaming PC $1,000+


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 28, 2011)

If you get an 360, add in monthly fees too.

You also do not need a $1k PC to play games today. Even a Llano system is good enough for most games and you can build one of those for ~$500 (or buy one).


----------



## Mussels (Sep 28, 2011)

RevengE said:


> It's alot cheaper to buy a console. $300.00 Plus a few games, so $500.00, or, build a massive gaming PC $1,000+



or $400 for a llano quad core system with a 5770 and use it on your TV *Shrug*


----------



## RevengE (Sep 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> or $400 for a llano quad core system with a 5770 and use it on your TV *Shrug*



I guess I was just thinking how I build things. I always get the best of the best. Not everyone would build one like me.  So you have a point mussels.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> or $400 for a llano quad core system with a 5770 and use it on your TV *Shrug*



and you can surf the internets on it and watch your pr0nz


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 28, 2011)

Let us do some math, shall we? The cost of consoles (PCPer)


----------



## Kursah (Sep 28, 2011)

Not sure if this was posted here yet...but an article over at Bright Side News seems to think that PCs will overtake Consoles by 2014...a couple of nifty graphs and a few paragraphs..you decide for yourself. I wouldn't doubt it, but I would like to see more quality titles, though thankfully the huge indie market on all platforms is kicking ass! Either rate, here's the link, sorry if it was already posted.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/9/26/pc-gaming-to-overtake-consoles-by-2014.aspx


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 28, 2011)

Kursah said:


> Not sure if this was posted here yet...but an article over at Bright Side News seems to think that PCs will overtake Consoles by 2014...a couple of nifty graphs and a few paragraphs..you decide for yourself. I wouldn't doubt it, but I would like to see more quality titles, though thankfully the huge indie market on all platforms is kicking ass! Either rate, here's the link, sorry if it was already posted.
> 
> http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/9/26/pc-gaming-to-overtake-consoles-by-2014.aspx



If PCs were to take over, then we need better titles, more PC exclusive games, but most of all, we need the devs to get their arses in gear and realise what vast amounts of potential the PC has and use it as a way to draw in players rather then say "fuck this, its too much hard work" and alienate the pc community by making a game thats based on hardware from 4generations ago and charge us through the nose for it.

the money is there for the taking, but they dont want to exploit it and drive sales just like they exploited everyone jumping onto consoles. Its just beyond them to make modern game that makes use of modern hardware or at least pushes the boundaries of modern hardware.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2011)

Great Point FreedomEclipse. 
It would be nice if they did get off there aris and start making games the right way. Anyway, by the time the new PS4 and XBOX 720 get released, they would be already more than 2 generations behind just like the past PS1, PS2, PS3, XBOX, Dreamcast etc. 

To be fair, the only time where Gaming Consoles were even with PC IMO was the days of the Sega Genesis, N64, Sega Master System, NES, Turbo Graphics 16 etc..... But not anymore 

Here is my original Post once again:
*NVIDIA: PC Games Sales To Surpass Console Games Sales By 2014*
http://www.gamefront.com/nvidia-pc-games-sales-to-surpass-console-games-sales-by-2014/


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 29, 2011)

theres no way that article is true. Not unless Nvidia have enough money to go around bribing every dev to make proper games for the PC.

Nvidia could setup some sort of reward scheme that gives devs tonnes of money every time they make a hit game for the PC  but then again. devs could take it the wrong way and say Nvidia is treating them like a kid.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 30, 2011)

The numbers speak for themselves. It seems that console game sales tend to stay fairly steady, but PC game sales have been rising incredibly fast. 

Unless consoles can match PC digital distribution they WILL fall behind.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2134722


mastrdrver said:


> If you get an 360, add in monthly fees too.
> 
> You also do not need a $1k PC to play games today. Even a Llano system is good enough for most games and you can build one of those for ~$500 (or buy one).


That Llano blows away the PS3 and XBOX 360 by far, yet it costs cheaper and is highly upgradable...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 1, 2011)

Oh i forgot about steam.....

well.....If they keep making games free to play (like TF2 -- I PAID FOR MY COPY!!!!) and coming up with some bargaintastic offers like Batman:AA for £3 then sure.

Infact, one of my clients that i built a new PC for is blaming me cuz he's emptied his entire bank account into steam


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Oct 1, 2011)

RevengE said:


> I guess I was just thinking how I build things. I always get the best of the best. Not everyone would build one like me.  So you have a point mussels.



I like to build computers that way as well. But you can't compare buying a console to building a top of the line computer. You would have to compare it to something lower end. The system Mussels said would be faster and just as cheap. And like said games off Steam, much cheaper than even used games at Gamestop.



FreedomEclipse said:


> Oh i forgot about steam.....



Steam is where it's at. 4 packs are amazing, and sales, their sales make Gamestops used games look bad. BC2 I think still used is like $30, then you need a $10 map addon. Yet on Steam sales you can get it for $5, I think they even had it at $7 at the end of 2010, when it wasn't even a year old yet. How can consoles possibly compare with that?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 1, 2011)

i dont see pc gamein dyeing its imho the console choice of adults anyways 1kurgan1's bang on with his praise of steam it puts a good fight up v xbox live or ps3 world or whatever its called 

great offers inc a surprising few full free games portal 1 eg and when you throw emulators into the bag you have to be non pc literate to think consoles are gona kill off pcs, simply wont happen, they may one day converge with an xbox gui on pc or sumat but im not worried yet, 3x screen consoles are more then years off and dreams the next gen might support that for so few installed 3 screeners is dreamin


----------



## techtard (Oct 2, 2011)

Like 1Kurgan1 said, With Steam as a major game distributor on PC, you can get quality NEW games for bargain prices, especially during the summer and winter Mega Sales.
Nothing beats $50-70  US dollars for a ton of games in a complete publisher pack, or $5-10 for a single game.
Plus, you don't have to worry about scratched discs when you buy used from brick and mortar stores.

Consoles are fun, but they are holding back the industry right now.
We need a console refresh, with 64-bit processors, OpenGL 4 or DX11 + OpenCL capabilities, and 4+gb RAM. 

DX 9, 32-bit, and OpenGL 2 need to die so we can get games that are optimized for modern systems.
As it stands, we are currently using super computer CPUs and GPUs to run games that don't take advantage of the power because they are coded for old tech.


----------

