Why PC Gaming Sucks

[Ginger_Warrior]

If cost is the only factor when two people enjoy both similarly, as you say, and we've discussed this back and forth to death over numerous pages, is there any discursive value in this thread left anyway? If he's cutting the heart out of the discussion, then it's already had a triple bypass and gone into VF anyway. Let it die.

[Dexek]

As said, it's personal preference. I like my consoles for a variety of games, and then I like my PC for a number of other games. It's a never ending battle if you're trying to throw up and down positives and negatives in a discussion such as this. They both have their positives and negatives, that's why they're both popular choices.

 

Personally, I see more simplicity in console gaming in terms of setting up parties, and matches. I can also lounge around the room much more easily with console gaming.

 

With PC gaming, I enjoy what a higher end PC can bring to the table in terms of gaming. The small steps in graphical enhancement and the ability for the community to so vastly mod a PC version of a game is what appeals to me.

[Randox]

Sorry, I did sort of end up removing my direct answer.

 

Yes, if two people enjoy PC and console gaming equally, then price is likely to be the point of contention.

 

My point was that I consider this irrelevant, since price has no direct impact on how enjoyable the experience is. It only impacts on which is more likely to be bought, which doesn't correlate with what people find most desirable. Generally, the most expensive items are considered the most desirable, which is why they are the most expensive. In this case, it is complicated by the fact that a computer of some sort is pretty much essential for functioning in the modern world, which means most families have at least one. Consoles need to be cheep to attract people, because they are essentially siphoning money out of peoples computer budgets. You need to be able to afford both at once, or your not going to have nearly as many sales.

[Sbrideau]

Actually, being both a PC and console gamer myself, I can say that price has nothing to do with why I chose to play on the computer or the Xbox360. I have 2 computers able to play any game that is out right now (one desktop that is 3 years old, and one laptop that is 1 year old), and a 360. I usually will go with what feels good between the computer and the xbox for what games I get. For games like cod, it's going to be the xbox of course because of the sheer amount of people that plays it which is much lower on pc, but then again, I don't really car if the game is on pc or xbox, it all comes to the same, and most people are probably like me, they don't care about the price.

[Faux]

In this case, I'm not talking about casuals like you who think they're PC gamers when you haven't even heard of SLI/Crossfire setups, multiple monitors, RAID, etc. which you most likely don't have on your "gaming PC".

 

If you can't admit PC gaming costs more, this argument with you is futile. Even I never denied PCs have technical superiority.

 

I said I had a midline gaming laptop and several consoles. I never said I had a top tier desktop PC. I don't have the funds to build a top of the line machine yet. If lacking the funds to build one defines you as a "casual" - which is a laughable term, especially when used as you have - then I have to wonder where you fall in this ambiguous "casual" and "pro" labels you chuck around.

 

I am well aware of the advanced features that you claim I don't know about. Long gone are the days where you had to be an "advanced user" in order to have a top-of-the line, home built PC, though. RAID, btw, isn't necessary for a top tier gaming rig. They're for advanced users who want redundancy and insurance against hdd failure. To mention it as being one of the "defining" traits that separate "casuals" from "pros" in gaming is confusing, to say the least.

 

You imply that having multiple gaming consoles devalues them as a gaming enthusiast. Please explain what you mean here, because that seems like quite the assumption. And an incorrect one at that. They are not a mutually exclusive thing by any stretch of the imagination, and to imply otherwise only lessens your credibility and weakens your argument.

 

As for what you claim are my own assumptions...if they were false, you would have an answer for my questions. You show your ignorance about what you're debating against when you bandy about terms you don't even understand and fail to listen to the people you're actually talking with by citing things they never even said.

 

To put it bluntly, you're talking out of your ass. You don't understand what is essential and what isn't when building a desktop (let alone purchasing premade!) and how it affects the bottom line price of what you're paying. You quote RAID, xfire, and dualmonitors as if they're essential to your build. You can't conclude that anything is more expensive than the other when you don't even understand what the costs are associated with it.

 

 

So now we're talking about essentials? Coming from the person who brought up the multiple console point that started this line of debate. Lol.

 

Also, most people own more than one console or handheld (Source: gamefaqs daily polls x, most even have every iteration of consoles from the same publishers x, x, x, etc etc etc) Not to mention that with add-ons in the form of DLC, accessories, repairs out of warranty (happens to everyone, PC or Console), etc your costs become less skewed than you can imagine.

 

If anything, I'd propose that only an idiot would say they're any different in cost in the long run. When you're not comparing identical traits, it's apples and oranges. When you are, it pretty much all comes out in the wash. It's downright laughable to do otherwise and assert that one side is better than the other (be it in quality, cost, whatever) as if it were an absolute truth and not a matter of preference.

 

Also, just a tip: people don't throw out their PS2 because they bought a PS3. So yes, most people actually do have multiple consoles.

 

Actually, being both a PC and console gamer myself, I can say that price has nothing to do with why I chose to play on the computer or the Xbox360. I have 2 computers able to play any game that is out right now (one desktop that is 3 years old, and one laptop that is 1 year old), and a 360. I usually will go with what feels good between the computer and the xbox for what games I get. For games like cod, it's going to be the xbox of course because of the sheer amount of people that plays it which is much lower on pc, but then again, I don't really car if the game is on pc or xbox, it all comes to the same, and most people are probably like me, they don't care about the price.

 

You're out of touch of "most people" if you think price doesn't matter.

 

Sorry, I did sort of end up removing my direct answer.

 

Yes, if two people enjoy PC and console gaming equally, then price is likely to be the point of contention.

 

My point was that I consider this irrelevant, since price has no direct impact on how enjoyable the experience is. It only impacts on which is more likely to be bought, which doesn't correlate with what people find most desirable. Generally, the most expensive items are considered the most desirable, which is why they are the most expensive. In this case, it is complicated by the fact that a computer of some sort is pretty much essential for functioning in the modern world, which means most families have at least one. Consoles need to be cheep to attract people, because they are essentially siphoning money out of peoples computer budgets. You need to be able to afford both at once, or your not going to have nearly as many sales.

 

Kind of inane to just limit the scope of what is enjoyable. How about just simply calling consoles more enjoyable because 4 people can enjoy it at the same time vs a loner on a PC?

[Faux]

Since you (Faux) have not yet argued this same point for consoles, it is more than fair to say that yes, your argument is in fact that console gaming is superior to pc gaming, and you probably shouldn't be trying to deny that when your title and opening post say otherwise.

 

No it isn't. It's honestly simple logic you can't grasp. PC gaming sucking doesn't mean console gaming doesn't suck.Both of them can suck differently. I can also make a list of why console gaming is also horrible (better than your attempts to, anyway), but that's for another thread.

 

I made this thread for the "PC gaming race superiority" rats that plagued the other thread. That's all. Stop trying to act like you know me personally. It just makes me laugh tbh.

[decebal]

Dear God, you've opened the can of worms again.

 

Faux, you can't win this, no matter how valid your points are. Most people that frequent these forums probably play PC's anyway.

[Guest Rob]

The only point I agree with that has been made in favor of the console side is the price difference. If you don't have much money to spend, then console gaming is probably for you. If you don't mind paying a bit extra for quality, then go with PC gaming. Since most people are going to own a computer that costs at least $500 anyways, it's not a huge price difference when you look at it.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[nine naked men]

I frequent this thread for advice on all my technology and technology-related purchases

 

I've decided to probably buy an Etch-a-Sketch or something.

[Faux]

Dear God, you've opened the can of worms again.

 

Faux, you can't win this, no matter how valid your points are. Most people that frequent these forums probably play PC's anyway.

 

I don't mind.

 

The only point I agree with that has been made in favor of the console side is the price difference. If you don't have much money to spend, then console gaming is probably for you. If you don't mind paying a bit extra for quality, then go with PC gaming. Since most people are going to own a computer that costs at least $500 anyways, it's not a huge price difference when you look at it.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Just an example.

 

BF2 - released in 2009. Let's say it's around your typical "$500 budget" (which it probably isn't because the GPUs alone cost $200 back then).

 

Recommended specs:

Intel Pentium 4 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon XP equivalent

1 GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 256 MB or ATi Radeon 9500 256 MB

3 GB of free hard disk space for Windows swap file and save data

 

BF3 - released 2011: Quick check off newegg.com, GTX560 costs $270, on sale for $233. Not even looking at the cost of a quad core, and the extra ram. new MB and the new OS.

 

Recommended specs:

Windows 7 64-bit

Intel or AMD quad-core

4 GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 6950

 

Two years apart...

[Guest Rob]

I didn't mean $500 as a gaming rig. I'm aware that good gaming rigs cost two to three times more than that. I used $500 as the average person's computer - something a teenager would use for school work and facebook. I meant that since the average person spends that much on a PC anyways, you can use that to justify spending more on a gaming PC.

 

Example: Someone owns an Xbox that they paid $200 for and a computer that they paid $500 for. They don't PC game. Total spent: $700

Example 2: Someone owns a $1000 gaming PC. Total spent: $1000.

 

Difference of $300. They're not paying an extra $1000 to PC game in that case; they're paying an extra $300.

[Alg]

To open a whole new can of worms: It also depends on the games that you want to play. There are a lot of good console exclusives out there.

 

Though that one goes back into the impossible-to-argue-against-without-looking-like-a-jackass category of "personal taste"; the bane of PC/Console debates everywhere.

[Guest Rob]

That goes both ways though, since there's just as many - if not more - PC exclusive games. So it's not really an arguable point imo :P

[Sir_Squab]

Why is this not dead >_<

 

PC is generally more expensive, takes more knowledge, offers an overall better gaming experience. Run games at higher quality.

 

Consoles are better in general for those who don't want to get as involved. They are simpler. No need to worry about specs.

 

Both have exclusives.

 

Hardcore gamers will probably have a console and a PC. Their answer to exclusives is multiple systems.

 

OP started this as a rant against people saying PC > console in a 360 vs ps3 thread. His earlier posts came across as saying console > pc, perhaps unintentionally. OP is in denial of this.

 

PC people, if you claim you can actually build a custom PC for cheap, remember that a lot of people don't have the knowledge on how to build a PC and don't want to spend the time learning how to. Alienware is practically a testament to people being too lazy to figure out how to build a custom PC.

[Faux]

I didn't mean $500 as a gaming rig. I'm aware that good gaming rigs cost two to three times more than that. I used $500 as the average person's computer - something a teenager would use for school work and facebook. I meant that since the average person spends that much on a PC anyways, you can use that to justify spending more on a gaming PC.

 

Example: Someone owns an Xbox that they paid $200 for and a computer that they paid $500 for. They don't PC game. Total spent: $700

Example 2: Someone owns a $1000 gaming PC. Total spent: $1000.

 

Difference of $300. They're not paying an extra $1000 to PC game in that case; they're paying an extra $300.

 

 

I know what you mean. But PC graphics is only "better" when your PC is on par with current tech. If not, you're forced to lower a lot of your graphic settings which most of the time puts it at the same level (if not worse) as consoles.

 

To keep up with the technology, it will cost more than $300 (about the price of a higher mid tier GPU) in the same span as a console's generation (5-6 years).

 

Also remember I'm going by American prices. PC parts are even less competitive outside the US. Though most of you probably won't care to know.

 

OP started this as a rant against people saying PC > console in a 360 vs ps3 thread. His earlier posts came across as saying console > pc, perhaps unintentionally. OP is in denial of this.

 

I actually made this as a satire (though an accurate one imo). Not a rant ;)

 

P.S. to the other person who keeps denying the popularity of multiple screen setups https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=640

[Ginger_Warrior]

P.S. to the other person who keeps denying the popularity of multiple screen setups https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=640

Oh, God. Case closed then! :roll:

 

Are you serious?

[nine naked men]

Watch me end thousands of years of theological debate: https://www.google.c...aK-S0iQfVtIHoAw

 

You're welcome, Christians.

[Alg]

That goes both ways though, since there's just as many - if not more - PC exclusive games. So it's not really an arguable point imo :P

But you can argue that you should get a console if you like console exclusives, and vice versa.

 

Not bringing cost into it because gaming is an expensive hobby regardless of your system of choice.

[Guest Rob]

That's true. So it all comes down to personal choice really. Most PC gamers I know also have a console for exclusives or just for being able to play with friends who don't PC game. And I know several people who use a console as their gaming device who buy a few PC games (Mostly RTS games or MMO's) because they enjoy them. So I think that evens things out.

 

Other than cost, are there any "real" reasons to argue that PC gaming is 'bad'? (Not including opinions. E.G. games are just more fun on a console, more comfortable, etc.)

[Aeon_]

It may just be me, but a lot more people I know actively game on consoles. I literally know about 2 people that game on PCs.

[I_am_Not]

why do you continually argue current tech?

you do in fact realize the xbox is 8 years old, yes?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Other than cost, are there any "real" reasons to argue that PC gaming is 'bad'? (Not including opinions. E.G. games are just more fun on a console, more comfortable, etc.)

I think consoles are generally more sociable. I know the irony of that is I'm writing this message on an internet forum, from a PC. However, from personal experience, it's easier to socialise around one big TV on a big sofa, than lots of individual desks with individual screens and individual office chairs per person.

 

If that doesn't count as a "real" reason, then I'm not exactly sure what does. I mean, comfort would strike me as a legitimate factor in someone's decision to play either/or, simply because of back health and good posture, but... oh well.

[Guest Rob]

Other than cost, are there any "real" reasons to argue that PC gaming is 'bad'? (Not including opinions. E.G. games are just more fun on a console, more comfortable, etc.)

If that doesn't count as a "real" reason, then I'm not exactly sure what does. I mean, comfort would strike me as a legitimate factor in someone's decision to play either/or, simply because of back health and good posture, but... oh well.

 

I suppose the comfort part could be a good reason, but someone could play Xbox in an office chair or get a wireless keyboard/mouse for their PC and play on the couch. I guess it does end up being a bit more trouble/more expensive, though.

[sarg1010]

In regards to the more socialable aspect, Xbox lets you party up with other people in just a few seconds, while PC is usually Skype (which can take a while), or in-game chat. Granted, there are probably a lot more chat programs on the PC (none of which I know about), but I'd say the Xbox has the best "social" options.

[Kimberly]

You'd only say that never experiencing any real online play. Skype calls take less than 30 seconds to initiate, which is about as challenging as getting a party together in XBL voicechat. And a lot of online games have voice chat without 3rd party programs, similar to how xbl has voice chat always enabled assuming you've got the microphone.

 

I'd say they're pretty much equal.