Gaming Platform of Choice - Console

An anonymous reader writes "Sick of PC snobs bragging about their "superior" gaming rigs? This opinion piece (a rebuttal lobbed at a previous article taking the opposite stance) presents the other side of the eternal debate over gaming preference — consoles vs. PCs. Get 10 good reasons why consoles are a better way to game with your hard-earned dollars. "

Comments

Meat and Potatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are 10 reasons why console gaming rules the school.

1. It's cheaper. Don't let a PC gamer delude you into thinking that console gaming is more expensive--it's just not true. Console manufacturers take a loss on every machine sold and make up the difference in software sales. When you buy a console, you're getting the machine for cheaper than it costs them to make it. Not so with a gaming PC. You're paying a premium. Sure, some console games might retail for $10 higher than the PC equivalent, but budget-minded shoppers need only wait for a markdown to score some sweet deals.

2. Every game is guaranteed to work. Ever try to convince that pimply-faced teenager at the game store that your computer won't run that hot new game you bought yesterday? He doesn't care. "Read the friggin' box," is what he'll say. "No returns on opened PC games." This won't happen in the console realm. If you own "system X" every game made for it will perform the same way. Guaranteed.

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good. Don't believe the screenshots on the back of a PC game box. Unless your machine resembles the WOPR from War Games, you probably don't have enough juice to run it with all the settings turned up to 11. On a console game, you might have the option to adjust brightness or resolution (Xbox 360) but otherwise you get exactly what was advertised.

4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison. Whether you're hot for Mario, Kratos, or Ryu Hayabusa, you'll find their newest releases on consoles. Sure, the PC has some exclusive titles, but sooner or later they'll find their way onto your living room television since that's where the money is at.

5. Xbox Live. Aside from Battlefield 2, I can't think of any online game that's currently better on PC (get to work, DICE). Yes, many PC games let you play online multiplayer for free, but the experience is varied (and in some cases, atrocious). With a standardized online service like Xbox Live, all of your online bouts have a unified matchmaking system, friends list features, voice over IP chat, and more, and it all works regardless of what game you're playing. Hell, you could be watching a movie and your pal playing a game and you can send game and chat invites. When's the last time a PC game let you do that?

6. Backwards compatibility. When I upgraded from Windows 98 SE to WinXP, I lost the ability to play some of my favorite classic games. Sure, there are workarounds for some of them, but others I can only play on my pre-Y2K rig. Sony's handled backwards compatibility quite well with their consoles, even making it hard for the competition to match. And you don't have to futz with configuration files to get them to work.

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said.

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch. Yes, yes. We all know your $400 video card can output higher resolution than my equally expensive console. But PC gaming is uncomfortable and hardly a social experience (with people in the same room). If you sit at a desk all day in front of a computer, why on earth would you try to relax at home in front of one? What better way to unwind with the boys than to kick back on the sofa with a few cold ones, controllers in hand? I can think of none other (that don't involve dollar bills and copious amounts of regret).

9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse. Why is it that every PC game developer insists on assigning every damn key a different job? If they didn't pack in a map to which button does what, you'd never remember all the control options. Yes, keyboard and mouse are great for first person shooters and real time strategy games, but that doesn't make it any more comfortable. Hand me a wireless controller and give my carpal tunnel a rest, would ya?

10. Controller innovation. Leave it to a company like Nintendo to shake up th

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[legoburner]

5. Xbox Live. Aside from Battlefield 2, I can't think of any online game that's currently better on PC

Call of Duty 2 is without a doubt better on PC. Looks better, keyboard and mouse is much better for controlling and the online system is everything I would ever need on the PC.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[eln]

Yah, that's page 3, where the article rehashes the same crap every console gamer always says. The other 3 pages are just stupid flames. The whole article is basically meant to be a humor piece, but if you're just re-hashing the same article that's been posted constantly all over the Internet for the past 20 years, the humor is likely to be just as tired as your arguments.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Carcass666]

Mouse, keyboard = full, configurable control. Just about every game lets you set up the keyboard however you want.

PS2 controller = cure for carpal tunnel? Puhleeze. PS2 controllers are a plot by the apes to destroy our thumbs, and thus, eliminate our evolutionary advantage of opposeable thumbs.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Viperlin]

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said. well i run linux, so i dont really encounter many viri, adware or spyware's, however i have gig's of porn, is porn actually that bad?, i certainly wouldnt mind porn on a console.... PSP+PS2 Pr0n FTW!

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[nosredna]

7. [...]No porn [...] 'Nuff said.

Well, that's it. PC for me.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Lex-Man82]

Any fps really. Mouse and keyboard is far easier to use than a controller also Oblivion or any elder scrolls game.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Lonewolf666]

Thanks for putting this here - my take on a few of the points

1. It's cheaper.
Unless you want/need a PC anyway for other reasons. Then the extra parts you need on top of an office PC (faster graphics card, headphones/speakers, maybe a better sound card) are not more expensive than a console.

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good. Don't believe the screenshots on the back of a PC game box. Unless your machine resembles the WOPR from War Games, you probably don't have enough juice to run it with all the settings turned up to 11.
If you use your console with a normal television, you will get only a resolution that is comparable to 640x480 or at best 600x800 (asssuming a very good TV set). PCs usually have no trouble at such low resolutions ;-)
Only if you go for the full resolution of your PC screen, you need a monster PC.

4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from.
Funny, my preferred genres (FPS, RTS, MMORPGs and simulation) offer a lot more choice on the PC.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[twistedsymphony]

I'd have to disagree. When the 360 came out IGN did a poll asking if people thought the PC or 360 version of games looked better (using what was currently a bleeding edge PC), in most cases the PC version was voted as having somewhat better graphics but COD2 was one that was considered to be clearly better looking on the console. (I'd link the article but it's difficult to find now that it's months old).

Keyboard and Mouse isn't necessarily better, you can make the argument that the mouse is more accurate but are you sure you don't prefer that method simply because that's the control mechanism you learned how to play FPSs with? Personally I'll take a gamepad over a keyboard and mouse any day of the week, it's just more comfortable for me and feels more natural to me, I currently use a console like controller for all of my PC gaming because it's my preferred input device.

As for online matches "online system is everything I would ever need on the PC" is hardly an argument for why PC gaming might be BETTER. The two are fairly equivalent feature wise but I feel I find more quality matches on Xbox Live... at very least it's easier to find people of similar skill and easier to maintain that in-game relationship for future matches and games. Things like that are what make Xbox Live more then just playing games online... it's a community, much like you'll find in an MMO, but it spans across every game you play online using that console.

You're making arguments as if you don't own an Xbox 360 yourself, if you don't own one then IMO you aren't entirely qualified to make such arguments. It'd be like saying running is more enjoyable then swimming, but you've only ever read about and watched other people swim as opposed to spending some time and learning how to do it yourself before making such a claim.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get online and see pr0n on my Dreamcast!

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Vo0k]

1. It's cheaper.

Console is cheaper. Console gaming is more expensive - for the very reason you mentioned: More expensive games. If you want to buy 1-2 games a year, console may be the choice. But then switching to 0 games a year is a better choice.

2. Every game is guaranteed to work.
Except for scratched DVDs. I heard this one way too often. Harddisks don't get scratched as often. And you can make backups. And there's a dozen of troubleshooting steps you can take to get the game to work. If your XBOX game ceases to work for some reason, you're screwed.

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
You can't make your game look any better. You're stuck with certain level and the only possible upgrade is to buy a PC. With a good gfx card, PC blows XBOX out of the water. Of course consoles have better bang for the buck, but you're stuck with what you got.

4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison.
This all will be available for PC in 3 years through emulation. From ALL the consoles. Plus usually you get "[console X] AND PC" so the total for PC is much better than for any single console. For one console exclusive there are three or so "And PC" ones. For EACH of the consoles. Plus quite a few PC-exclusives.

5. Xbox Live.
Are we talking Console or Xbox?
Besides, thank you very much, I've heard enough of the XBOX

6. Backwards compatibility. When I upgraded from Windows 98 SE to WinXP, I lost the ability to play some of my favorite classic games.
And when you upgraded from XBOX to XBOX360?
Or from SNES to Playstation?
Or from...

Currently I play all these on PC, using emulation. And I can always double-boot or multi-boot to any system I want. Or run Dosbox. Or even WINE.
Backwards compatibility is a VERY rare animal for consoles. And cross-platform compatibility is nonexistent. In the meantime, you have to dig up a really antique game to be unable to come up with a current setup unable to run it.

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said.

No porn. 'Nuff said.

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
Your assumptions are wrong. I don't care if the device under the desk is a console or PC if it does what I need it to do. And I can alt-tab and find a webpage with a hint to the game I'm playing if I got stuck.

9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse.
A console-like controller for PC costs like $10. And has all the functionalities of the console one. But you really don't want to use one when you play first person shooters. I really feel for poor misguided kids who think XBOX controller is better than a mouse+keyboard to play HALO.
And I cuss at games that try to emulate console interface (Hi, Oblivion!) by digging every frigging option 3 levels down a menu and providing you with 6 assignable hotkeys.
Most popular Oblivion mod for PC? BTMod, interface rewrite to make it less XBOX-like.

10. Controller innovation.
PC is here usually a step behind consoles. And generally nobody found anything better than mouse+keyboard for FPS games yet, and it's going to stay that way.

11. Multifunction
If you pay your $399, you get a game console and a DVD player. It can hardly do anything else. If you want to surf the net, or get some work done, or write a letter, you need a PC. So the choice is: not PC or console. The choice is PC plus console or just PC. And I prefer to spend my money to beef up my PC because the extra investment will be useful not only for gaming.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Overloadplanetunreal]

To further your rebuttal for point #3, even if you have an HDTV it likely will not look as good as it does on the console boxes, or the promotional videos of "in game footage" for the next gen consoles. Just like computer games, console games run at different resolutions. The screenshots are taken at the equivalent of 1080p, which most HDTV's bought in the last several years don't support, and most games don't even support that resolution (but the developers can still take a screenshot at that res)

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Headcase88]

Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said.

Wait a second...

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[ResidntGeek]

It's too bad the apes never evolved more intelligence, so they'd know that they have opposable thumbs too. If they had, they'd realize our intelligence is our advantage.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[uhlume]

Those damned, dirty apes!

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[KDR_11k]

Keyboard and Mouse isn't necessarily better, you can make the argument that the mouse is more accurate but are you sure you don't prefer that method simply because that's the control mechanism you learned how to play FPSs with? Personally I'll take a gamepad over a keyboard and mouse any day of the week, it's just more comfortable for me and feels more natural to me, I currently use a console like controller for all of my PC gaming because it's my preferred input device.

Depends completely on the game. If the game is about controlling one actor directly the gamepad is almost always the "better" solution (though I use gamepads only for 2d games, being able to orient your character with the mouse makes analog movement control unnecessary for almost all purposes) but once you're controlling more than one object or use indirect control ("go here") the gamepad reaches its limit. Games like strategy and many puzzle genres aren't as nice to control with a gamepad. Pointing at things is a more natural input method for many games which is why Nintendo is bringing it to the console world with the DS and Wii.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Warlock7]

Well, if you were trying to force it down someone's throat, it would appear that you were playing something other than "Spank the monkey". :D

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[pavon]

Keyboard and Mouse isn't necessarily better, you can make the argument that the mouse is more accurate but are you sure you don't prefer that method simply because that's the control mechanism you learned how to play FPSs with?

There is more to it than familiarity. The mouse has capabilities that the gamepad doesn't. For example, in a FPS, measure how long it takes to turn 90 degrees with a gamepad, compared to how long it takes with a mouse. The advantage of the mouse is that it is both accurate and fast. With a joystick you can get one or the other but not both.

Of course, there isn't any reason that you can't design a game that uses either effectively, but I wouldn't want to be playing a FPS using a gamepad against people with mice.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Chris Burke]

1. It's cheaper. Don't let a PC gamer delude you into thinking that console gaming is more expensive--it's just not true. Console manufacturers take a loss on every machine sold and make up the difference in software sales. When you buy a console, you're getting the machine for cheaper than it costs them to make it.

Hehe. It really cracked me up last generation when Sony and Nintendo revealed that this commonly held wisdom was in fact false and that they both were making a decent profit on sales of the console itself, thank you very much. Nintendo had been making a profit from the get-go, while I think Sony was selling for a loss at first but was able to reduce the cost, as planned, so that they were profitable. Meanwhile Microsoft, who had bought into the old logic of 'make a loss on hardware, make it up with software' big time, was still losing something like $100 on each XBOX even after it had been out for two years. Oops! I bet the first XBOX division meeting they had after Sony/Nintendo let the cat out of the bag had to have been a fun one. Heh.

It's a silly point, anyway. It contains its own refutation: "make up the difference in software sales". To really find out which is cheaper you have to consider the number of games purchased, and any hardware in the computer that wasn't bought solely for games. For the record, I play both PC and console games, and buy a new video card about as often as I buy a new console, so they end costs are fairly similar for me.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Aladrin]

1. It's cheaper.
Console is cheaper. Console gaming is more expensive - for the very reason you mentioned: More expensive games. If you want to buy 1-2 games a year, console may be the choice. But then switching to 0 games a year is a better choice.

Ehh... Not only that, but it only works out 'cheaper' if you only buy 1 console. Once I've bought the Wii, x360 and PS3, nevermind handhelds... I've spent enough to buy a VERY nice gamer rig if I build it myself. (I still can't believe people pay double for a 'name-brand' game rig. Jeez.)

9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse.
A console-like controller for PC costs like $10.

Oh, don't forget that you can just buy an x360 controller for $40 and have the SAME ONE.

Not that any of this matters because as a true gamer, I own all of the above (well, I will, when they are released.) I will initially resist the new consoles (resisted x360 until just a week ago) and then buy them anyhow. And as my livelihood requires a good PC, that will keep up to date as well.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Meagermanx]

I own an XBOX. Do different XBOXs run differently? -Ryan

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Badfysh]

>1. It's cheaper.

Not really, if you already own a PC. Why buy two items when you only need one? Buying a console in addition to your computer is a terrible waste of money IMO.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Tim Browse]

I still can't believe people pay double for a 'name-brand' game rig. Jeez.

Never mind. I still can't believe people are sad enough to call their computer a 'rig'. Jeez.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Trifthen]

2. Every game is guaranteed to work.

Except for scratched DVDs. I heard this one way too often. Harddisks don't get scratched as often. And you can make backups. And there's a dozen of troubleshooting steps you can take to get the game to work. If your XBOX game ceases to work for some reason, you're screwed.

Except for when you need to reinstall the game (did you back up your save file? Can you even find it?). Except for when you don't have the disk available, so you can't play, Mr. Pirate. Except for when you can't get online, so you can't play, Mr. Filthy Pirate. Except for when the game requires "patch of the week" to load (remember Eidos?). Except for when you failed to submit a valid retinal scan, DNA registration, your social security number and two credit cards, you worthless human scum who dared to exchange money for our game from a reputable retailer without our explicit permission. ;)

Sure, you can scratch a disk. But there are MANY reasons a game will simply refuse to run on a PC, ignoring insufficient hardware. Hell, I challenge you to take a call from your mom at 9pm while she's frantic that SIMS-2 keeps crashing due to the beta nVidia drivers required to even get the game past the loading screen.

I used to say PC and console gaming were about even. Now, I'm not so sure.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Cpt_Kirks]

Yeah, and they have FOUR of them.

They can, like, beat off FOREVER and not get carpal tunnel...

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[legoburner]

I do have an xbox 360 and agree with xbox live as being a great thing, especially the community side of things. I have 720p HDTV with the xbox so it is of moreorless the same resolution as the PC version. I have only rented CoD2 on xbox, but bought it for PC and have the demo sitting on the xbox at the moment. Perhaps when it first came out things were not quite as good looking, but my PC is rather bleeding edge now and it just feels better (more responsive controls), and looks better due to more antialiasing and ansitropic filtering. The 360 version has noticeably worse antialiasing than the PC version with options cranked up (a quick google shows that 4xAA is required for all xbox games, which is quite a bit lower than the minimum of 8xS I used on PC).

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[bigman2003]

In most games you can speed up the gamepad control, just like you can speed up a mouse.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[masterzora]

But it's much easier to control a faster mouse than it is to control a faster gamepad, which is the point the GP was trying to make.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[WilliamSChips]

Or any RTS. I don't see how it would even be possible to play an RTS on a console(although Wii makes it vaguely possible)

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[NosTROLLdamus]

My friends X-Box would frequently display an odd "loading" screen in halo, yet on mine, with the same disk, nothing. This happened whether or not it was the last game played.

This is if our X-Boxes would even run at all. Some times, after purchasing a shiny BRAND NEW xbox game we would get a "disk not recognizable" screen, and one would have to reset it, sometimes several times, to work. Once, mine stopped working for almost two weeks. The light turned red, and it wouldn't even display picture. I hesitated sending it back, because I heard stories of people getting charged for the repairs, and to pay SHIPPING for the beast to get there would be bad enough. I just hoped it'd start working again (it did, and I never have had a similiar problem).

It's not that I hate the x-box, it's just that they're finicky beasts. I've had my x-box not be able to play the hot new game that came out yesterday.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[thinsoldier]

I've not been able to properly hold a controller and perform respectably in any console game since the days of the 8-bit NES.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[thinsoldier]

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.

and not that many people (around here at least) have high-def televisions.
And with wireless keyboard + wireless mouse + s-video/rca out from the video card it's quite simple to use a pc for many tasks from your couch. Even easier if you have a laptop (I think).

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[thinsoldier]

--A console-like controller for PC costs like $10.-- round here they cost $25 and up and NONE that I've bought have ever been worth buying. It honestly seems that whenever a defective batch of logitech (or other brands) controllers are discovered, they immediately get shipped to the Bahamas. Every pc controller I've bought in the last SEVEN YEARS has been a useless piece of crap.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[cheeseboy001]

Don't you understand? On your PC you can play Sonic AND Mario.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Lonewolf666]

Oh, I guess that games on new console generations (PS3 ?) will eventually support whatever the display can take. That means 1080i or 1080p, which should be hi-def enough.
Of course, the PS3 is also a lot more expensive than earlier consoles, which makes TFA's point #1 extra moot.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Aladrin]

No, Logitech just makes crap these days. That's why I recommended the actual xbox 360 controller. The analog sticks are a little loose, but the overall quality is pretty good. My all-time favorite controller is the Phoenix Revolution for ps2, which I use with an adapter on the PC. It's got a gimick where you can move the buttons around, but I rarely do. Instead, I use the sensitivity adjustments on the analogs, and the shape and feel of the controller is perfect for my hands.

Unfortunately, I don't think they make them any more.

In short: There is no such thing as a decent 'console-like controller for PC' ... There is only the real thing, possibly with an adapter.

There is 1 exception... The old old old Gravis Gamepad. But in today's games, it doesn't have enough functions. Oh well.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[drsquare]

Mouse, keyboard = full, configurable control. Just about every game lets you set up the keyboard however you want.

What is the natural position for your hands and arms:
a) Arms stuck out in front of you, palms facing down.
b) Arms hung low, palms facing together.

You can configure your keyboard all you want, you'll never get past the fact that keyboards involve unnatural, unrelaxed positioning.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[drsquare]

Except for scratched DVDs. I heard this one way too often. Harddisks don't get scratched as often.

Last I looked, computer games came on DVDs as well.

You can't make your game look any better. You're stuck with certain level and the only possible upgrade is to buy a PC.

Console gamers are interested in gameplay. PC freaks are interested in frames per second and very little else.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[thinsoldier]

have any adapter recommendation? Only ones I've been able to find are Huskee usb adapters for PS2. But it seems everything made by Huskee is total garbage, especially the drivers. It works great the first time and the first time only. I've tested it on multiple systems and it always only works the first time.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Carcass666]

a) Arms stuck out in front of you, palms facing down. b) Arms hung low, palms facing together.

Between both of these admittedly non-optimal positions I'll take arms in front, palms down any day. Given the size of most PS2-type controllers, you have to bend your wrists inward to play, and that isn't good for you. My PC has a big fat ergo keyboard with a raised palm rest on the front (i.e. the keybaord tilts up in the front, not in the back). My wrists stay pretty straight. Again, not optimial, but until somebody sets up a controller that doesn't force you to hunch your shouders and tweak your wrists, I'll take it. I haven't played with the WII two-part controller, but it seems like a possible move in the right direction, at least from an ergonomic point of view.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[Aladrin]

Unfortunately, I bought it quite a long time ago and it doesn't seem to exist online any more. It was something like http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-6m-49-en-70-k5 n.html except that it was gc/xbox only and I modified the xbox end to be usb, and used the xbox joypad drivers for windows.

I'm guessing I can't find it any more because the other ones I'm finding are 'better' and noboby bothers with the old ones... But I like mine just fine.

Re:Meat and Potatoes

[rtb61]

How can a game console be cheaper than a PC. I needed a PC to do real computer work, access the net, email etc. I got the windows toy operating thrown in, if fact I could'nt refuse it. So Kubuntu for work and the windows toy operating system for play and my game titles are free of any M$ licence fees. (windows 2099, it might finally just barely work ;))

Did someone's cousin write this?

[jandrese]

That article just wasted 2 whole minutes of my life. If you're brand new to the console/pc flamewar it'll give you the same arguments that everybody else has already heard a million times, but if not, don't bother.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the article completely ignores the fact that playing first-person shooters with a console controller is a very poor relation of mouse and keyboard.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[eln]

Oh, I dunno, if you're double jointed or have a third arm, a console controller is not that big of a hinderance to playing an FPS game.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Rob T Firefly]

You're forgetting the

next page

major difference in TFA..

click for next page

those old, rehashed arguments

click next page

from the past 10-20 years

next goddamned page

don't serve up

please buy some crap before going to the next page

a

next freaking page

metric shitload

buy next page on eBay!

of ad imprints

next page by Gooooogle

for gwn.com.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[stevesliva]

Of course, the article completely ignores the fact that playing first-person shooters with a console controller is a very poor relation of mouse and keyboard.

Wait a minute. Which is it that's a poor imitation of a projectile weapon, assuming that's what you mean by "shooter?"

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[wc_paladin]

Alright, hook up a PS2 or Xbox controller to your pc and play me in some DoD Source.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[soupforare]

We're supposed to read the articles now?

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Stormscape]

It took me 5 minutes to read that purile crap. It was all "blah blah blah look at me I'm waving my e-penis around"

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[sunwolf]

Unless you're talking about the Wiimote, that is.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the article completely ignores the fact that playing first-person shooters with a console controller is a very poor relation of mouse and keyboard.

No it doesn't. It says keyboard and mouse are better, just not comfortable:

Yes, keyboard and mouse are great for first person shooters and real time strategy games, but that doesn't make it any more comfortable.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Kuvter]

I know the next page, new ad, is annoying, but to be fair there were only 4 pages. This means you hit the next page only 3 times, not 8.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Rob T Firefly]

I apologize, I should really know better. After all, I've been told a million times to stop exaggerating.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[jellomizer]

1St Person shooters Are like eat the dot games of the 1980s, and beat them up games of the 1990s

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[hawfizzle]

why is the modded funny? this should be modded UNINFORMED

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[festers]

What I want is my time back! I need it for my life, I need it to LIVE!

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[killjoe]

When I read "console" I thought they were talking about a command line, you know the old MUDs and text based games. Those games were more fun then anything out today that's for sure.

Give me a console any day.

Re:Did someone's cousin write this?

[Sigma 7]

I know the next page, new ad, is annoying, but to be fair there were only 4 pages.

3 and a half-pages actually. It's almost like the writer of that article can't get enough filler for the final page.

If there isn't enough text per page or if it looks obvious that there's no effort in putting in reasonable page breaks, then the page seperation is an annoyance rather than a boon. At the very least, the author could have covered it up by splitting the 10 reasons across the final two pages.

But this is attacking the article because of its medium - I'd rather attack it on content (which is done several times over by now.)

Predictable response

[Rik Sweeney]

Why should I buy a console when I can just use an emulator to play all these games on my PC?

OK, now let's pretend for a moment you actually paid for all those games...

Re:Predictable response

[Firehed]

That, plus try actually emulating the latest games. Last I tried, even PS2 was very slow on pretty high end hardware, and I never had wonderful luck with PS1 either (though more due to my having no way to extract the BIOS data to actually run the program). Maybe the Xbox with it's more PC architecture runs better emulated; same for the gamecube though primarily due to it's lower hardware spec. And games designed for controllers (read: *not* FPS games) just never feel right on a keyboard and mouse.

I won't take this time to mention MAME cabinets, where I get to play low-spec games with proper arcade sticks, addressing both problems. ...err, oops. Not that they'll be playing the latest overpriced games, or anything.

Re:Predictable response

[vision864]

Advantage = PC.

Re:Predictable response

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gamecube has a higher hardware spec than the PS2.

Re:Predictable response

[KDR_11k]

Then you can probably afford the hardware to rip them from their original media.

Re:Predictable response

[thinsoldier]

I've actually been waiting a damned long time for a company to come along and let me pay them to do the hard work of finding all the old school games I want to play instead of having to hunt down roms and emulators myself. GAMETAP!

Re:Predictable response

[Soul-Burn666]

PS1 games work great emulated. Dreamcast games work tho not perfectly. PS2 games don't really work.

About the XBox, there was a project trying to create a high level re-compiler for XBox binaries. It worked and it worked pretty well, until it was shut down by Microsoft.

About playing with a keyboard and mouse, you can buy a decent USB DualShock2 clone for about 16$.

Reason #1

[ben there...]

Because I already bought one, so they must be better!

blah blah blah

[Jerf]

For any two items with varying characteristics in multiple dimensions where neither is obviously worse or superior, the decision about which is "better" says more about the decision metric/weightings than the items being judged.

It's basically just a definition debate; once you accept a definition of "better", you almost immediately have your answer about which is better.

Defitition debates can be dry, but productive. Defitition debates where the participants don't realize they're in a definition debate, and argue as if their definition is some sort of universal, are boring and stupid.

Console vs. PC arguments tend to fall in the latter category.

I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it.

Re:blah blah blah

[foniksonik]

Personally I find defecation debates over defitition debates. Not only are they not dry while still being productive... when they are carried out by monkeys in an enclosed space, they can be downright hilarious!

Re:blah blah blah

[jdcook]

"I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it."

Not to start a semantic argument or anything but I think you should get your terms straight first.

Re:blah blah blah

[Jerf]

Ah, thank you.

I've tried on several occasions to find what I figure must be an existing term, but you'd be surprised how hard it is to find the name of an argument fallacy just from the description. (Logical fallacies are much better covered and you can usually just browse down one of the many lists, but I've had a harder time finding the purely argument fallacies that aren't really logical fallacies. In this case, it's not a logical fallacy because both sides may be using impeccable logic, within their own chosen axioms.)

Re:blah blah blah

[tritium6]

Mod parent up... we need more posts like this on slashdot

Re:blah blah blah

[Hott of the World]

Its called a "Merely Verbal" argument, and you're wrong, it only hides the underlying case of this discussion.

What you're actually thinking of, is a "Criterial debate" (Arguing for Criteria) where its not the definition that is under scrutiny, but actually what qualifies something for approval while denying the opposing veiwpoint.

Criteria for a great gaming machine can hardly be objectively chosen, what with gaming being a wholely subjective experience. //Argues for fun and sport.

Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

vi vs Emacs, some guy spent a lot of free time thinking up 10 more reasons to prolong a debate that no person with anything resembling a life would give more than a few seconds thought to.

Seriously, how many minds have been changed by articles like this?

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Rik Sweeney]

vi vs Emacs

Oh bravo, open up Pandora's box why don't you.

1. PCs vs Consoles
2. vi vs Emacs
3. ?????

Anyone for number 3?

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

1. PCs vs Consoles
2. vi vs Emacs
3. ?????

Anyone for number 3?

3. Profit!

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

3. ?????

How about: 3. "Get a life" vs "waste of time"

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Square Snow Man]

you forgot; OpenGL vs. OpenGL|ES

Re:Next on slashdot..

[HoosierPeschke]

Gnome vs. KDE?

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Konqueror vs. Lynx?

Re:Next on slashdot..

[waif69]

Army vs Navy vs USMC vs Air Force

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't get out of a definition war.

Passing time isn't wasting it.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Rik Sweeney]

Gnome vs. KDE?

Don't be silly, everyone knows that Gnome sucks

Re:Next on slashdot..

[TheAmazingJambi]

Army, Navy,USMC and Air Force vs President Bush aka "Commander Cuckoo Bananas"

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

World of Warcraft vs Life

Re:Next on slashdot..

[VJ42]

Anyone for number 3?

Star Trek vs Star Wars? ;p

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Overloadplanetunreal]

Oh come on, no one did the most obvious, real one: 3. Mac vs PC

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Reverend528]

Don't be silly, everyone knows that Gnomes suck

Well, they're the perfect height for it.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[spyrochaete]

4. Profit!

Re:Next on slashdot..

[KDR_11k]

But what if consoles won PC vs Console? Mac vs. Console? Man, that would be a pointless battle...

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Minwee]

Gnome vs. KDE?

EMACS, obviously.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Loko Draucarn]

Well, we've got to wait for December for one side of that contest.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[CronoCloud]

vi on the PS2 vs. emacs on the PS2 Now that would be a battle. Which vi would win by the way.

I do prefer vi/vim on the PS2 LInux kit, just so you know.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush vs. Reason

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot; OpenGL vs. OpenGL|ES

OpenGL is going to eventually be based on top of OpenGL ES so there's nothing to argue about really.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[WilliamSChips]

Yes, Gnome sucks, but less so than KDE. :)

Re:Next on slashdot..

[WilliamSChips]

Stargate :)

Re:Next on slashdot..

[WilliamSChips]

The Air Force for the very simple reason that they own the SGC.

Re:Next on slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, no one did the most obvious, real one: 3. Mac vs PC

PC won the hardware war, the user share war, and software war. The only real thing that made Macs diverse (being a former Mac programmer myself) were their unique hardware and their unique OS, and they ditched both for off the shelf PCs and off the shelf BSD!

Re:Next on slashdot..

[VJ42]

Personally, I agree; it's just I've seen so many debates on the ST vs SW subject, there's not much left to say, much like the PC vs Console debate.

Terrible Arguments

[b00tleg]

I think console's offer more variety of types of games, but the reasons he listed were aweful. Backwards Compatibility is only half done on 360 and wii. Cheap! PS3 is $600, you can buy a gaming dell computer for $700. The original Xbox has only been out for 3-4 years I believe, you are still paying an extra $400 - $500 for a new console as you would a new video card. The PC is also an operating system, I'm not going to go into what a computer can do after all this is slashdot, you get your money's worth right there.

This was more of a push to get xbox live and a 360, ps3 is too expensive, the wii is interesting but until it is out I am holding my judgement, and xbox live gives you demos, well so does the internet!

I think there are a lot more developers for consoles which give you more games and more variety, but the writer wanted to make a top ten list when only 3 or 4 were valid.

Re:Terrible Arguments

[masklinn]

Backwards Compatibility is only half done on [..] wii.

I don't quite get that one. Last time I checked, the Wii was fully backward compatible with the GC, to the point that you can actually hook GC controllers to your Wii...

No obsolescence

[aadvancedGIR]

My Vectrex (http://www.classicgaming.com/museum/vectrex/) is still working well, still as funny, and still approximatelly estimated aroung its retail price.

Re:No obsolescence

[Badfysh]

So is my Atari 2600. http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/115992/

reason No 11:

[lovebyte]

You can be MS free and play games on a console (except xbox exclusives)

Re:reason No 11:

[Drakin020]

It's a good thing you will never work in the computer business.

Re:reason No 11:

[lovebyte]

It's a good thing you will never work in the computer business.
I work in the computer business since 1990, the unix computer business, that is. MS and windows are not the only game in town.

Re:reason No 11:

[WilliamSChips]

Another challenge to your sig: Reduce hardware costs due to Linux's smaller memory footprint making things faster for less :)

Re:reason No 11:

[Drakin020]

Yeah now go ahead and find me support for that hardware....

Re:reason No 11:

[WilliamSChips]

Most of that hardware would probably be old stuff that would be trashed if you had to use Windows but can be placed to good use on Linux, if it's running past a certain amount of time it's probably going to continue running :)

Biggest reason:

[nosredna]

There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.

Re:Biggest reason:

[Kjella]

There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.

Umm shouldn't that be the other way around? I've never had a problem with my work distracting me from games unless it's a "RED ALERT, DEFCON1, PRINTER ON FIRE, ASAP ZULU" kind of work, and then it wouldn't help with a console. Though if I needed to shut down my PC, hook up the console to start a game then maybe I could be effective (so I could spend the extra time on games). Then again, there's slashdot...

Re:Biggest reason:

[steveo777]

There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.

I thought that was just /. as a whole... but maybe I'm wrong, seeing as the Wii promises to use Opera for web browsing, and that will also let us get to /.

This is news?

[EggyToast]

I was of the impression that everyone had pretty much decided whether they were a "pc fanboy," a "console fanboy," or just "someone who likes video games."

Does it matter what platform a game comes out for? If a game is based on using the mouse or internet, it's currently served best by PCs. Hence the still-high number of RTS and FPS games. If it's adaptable to both PCs and consoles, a game tends to come out for both. And if it's made for a controller, it's a console game. The only real difference is the interface.

This article just trots out the same tired "reasons" that everyone's heard already, and attempts to justify them as valid rationale for choosing consoles at the expense of PC gaming. Woohoo. Or you could not click on it, and save yourself from 4 pages of ad-heavy journalism practice. I don't think I've seen an article with more of that "intelliTXT" crap.

Re:This is news?

[slim]

If a game is based on using the mouse or internet, it's currently served best by PCs.

I could neatly refute that by citing Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast -- quite a good online experience, I imagine, unless you're as useless at Quake as I am, and playable using the Dreamcast mouse and keyboard.

However, since very few people want to play console games sitting at a desk, you're still right about the mouse.

I'm not letting you have the Internet argument any more though. Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube all had online games. Xbox Live is probably the slickest online gaming experience out there (shame about the subscription charges). 360 has an even better XBL. Wii will have online play. So will PS3. Hell, even the DS has online play.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your overall point is good, plenty of consoles have online. However, Quake 3 for dreamcast sucked. I say this as a big dreamcast fan and lover of Quake 3.

The framerate was low, the dreamcast mouse was poor (and I never got an adaptor to work, maybe others had better luck), the mouse sensitivity was capped too low, and the resolution was only 640x480 (or even less if you aren't using the VGA box) which is too low for the sniping-heavy space maps. If you're a controller fan the DC controller is not much good for FPS, with only 1 analog stick. Also you have the normal console complaint that you can't add extra maps or mods (I have about 100 extra Q3 maps, and I've heavily played all of them, and of course you couldn't get Q3 Team Arena for DC).
It gets props for the splitscreen support but otherwise it was a crappy port, the dreamcast is a lovely machine but not quite powerful enough for Q3.

Re:This is news?

[gdog05]

I am a converted PC gamer ever since I put XBMC on my XBox. The biggest reason for me here is cheating. I don't want anyone flaming me about how cheating takes away from the game structure. I don't want to spend a week trying to beat a game. There really aren't any PC games you can't cheat in, especially with trainers. And now I can run trainers in XBMC and I am happy as hell. It has opened up a lot of games I got frustrated with and quit. Now, I get to see the end without spending my rare free by being frustrated and annoyed. I still love gaming on my PC, but I can play new games without upgrading my machine every couple of weeks.

Re:This is news?

[slim]

However, Quake 3 for dreamcast sucked.

I accept your arguments. I just picked the oldest online console game with mouse support I could think of. You know, to be pedantic.

Taking the tangent and running with it though... I'm far from being a FPS connoiseur -- I actively dislike Halo and only really enjoyed Time Splitters 2 and Half Life -- but I thought Q3A seemed to be a very good port within the technical limitations. You're absolutely right about the frame rate and the resolution, but since your opponents would all be on DC too, it was a level playing field. They cleverly limited the deathmatch levels to small, tight maps, knowing that the machine would have trouble with the larger, more open levels, but also knowing that the smaller levels would lead to more frantic, console-like gameplay.

I hated it: it was Quake. But it was a terrific achievement anyway.

Re:This is news?

[TeamSPAM]

Honestly I think that "console fanboy" and "someone who likes video games" have merged into the same group. I think the cost of being a "pc fanboy" to play the lastest games have driven the "someone who likes video games" into playing consoles by default. In general the cost of a new video card is the price of the console. Of course Sony and Microsoft are hurting the metric I used to shift into a "console fanboy" category with the prices of their latest consoles. I do think that playing some games on the PC is better than the console, but I can't/won't justify the cost to have a computer that can play those games.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'm not sure there are any non-dreamcast online console FPSes with mouse control. Metroid Prime Hunters on DS is online with a stylus.
I don't have an xbox or PS2 so I'm not as familiar with their games.

Anyway, with Q3 DC you could play against people on PC if they had the right patch level. And, Quake 3 purely on DC also wasn't a totally level playing field - the mouse was still better than the controller and the VGA box better than the TV so some people had an unfair advantage.

Thanks for the reply, and sorry if I come across a bit ranty. I agree that shoehorning Q3 onto the dreamcast playably at all was pretty impressive, particularly since it didn't run on the PC I had at the time (no support for Voodoo 1).

Re:This is news?

[Hellkitten]

And there is the heart of the matter. I you only want to play games a console will probably give you better value for money (unless FPS and RTS is all that counts). OTOH if you need/want a computer anyway for other tasks (word processing/spreadsheets/photo editing/video editing +++) adding on the cost of a decent (not top of the line) video card will allow you to play games at a reasonable cost (atleast when compared to the ps3) Unless like the rest of us gadget junkies you end up getting both to get your regular fix of shiny new electronics.

Re:This is news?

[CronoCloud]

On the PS2 the single player FPS's often had keyboard and mouse support, the ones with online play don't as far as I know.

Got tired of games crashing my computer

[ewg]

I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.

Standalone devices with predictable specs are just more stable than the zoo of general purpose computing systems, be they desktop, laptop, or mobile phone. Keep games where they belong.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[slim]

I just got tired of games crashing my computer.

Yep, that's what did it for me too. After spending a lot of money on a new PC specifically with games mind, and having spent countless hours messing around with DirectX settings and driver updates, I'd still be constantly saving in Monkey Island 3 because you never knew when the whole thing would freeze up. Eventually I realised: it's not worth spending time and money on making this work, when a console will just work first time.

But the real decider is whether you prefer to play games sitting up at a desk, or slumped on an armchair. Console controllers aren't ideal in the former position, a keyboard and mouse are impractical in the latter.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[soupforare]

Console + HDD = unfinished games

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[CyDharttha]

On the other hand, my brother bought Morrowind for PC because the XBox wasn't cutting it. Constantly crashing, Xbox overheating, not reading the disc.. But then, another difference was the PC not running Windows..

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[plague3106]

Honestly, I don't know anyone that's had problems playing games. I haven't had a game that wouldn't 'just work' on a PC either.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[espressojim]

1997 called. I wants it's 9 year old video games back.

Times have changed since 1997, both for PCs and consoles.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[nsmike]

I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.

Then learn to take care of your system. I swear, 90% of these arguments are ridiculous. Unless you want the ABSOLUTE best performance, the HIGHEST graphics resolution, and the FASTEST load times, none of which are necessary to enjoy a PC game, you can have a PC with about a 6 year lifespan for the advancement of games. I had a 5 year old ATI Radeon 9700 AIW up until VERY recently, which handled Oblivion just fine. Maybe not at ridiculously high resolutions, and not with anti-aliasing or some of the other fun features newer vid cards have, but I still enjoy the game tremendously.

I'm not in favor of one style of gaming over the other. Console has its good games and exclusives, which work very well on that platform. PCs are UNDENIABLY better for FPSs and RTSs.

I like both. I like to have fun.

This guy seems to think PC gamers justifying their position on gaming are compensating for what they unconciously believe was a bad purchase. I think console gamers are justifying sticking only to console in order to comfort themselves for missing out on the great PC titles out there. Either way, this guy is full of shite.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[slim]

Honestly, I don't know anyone that's had problems playing games.

Either you're very, very lucky, or you're very new to it. It's probably 3 years or so since I gave up on PC gaming. I'm far more technically adept than most -- and have been gaming since the 8 bit era (when games would "just work") and through the DOS era when you had to build boot floppies of various kinds to allow games to fit in their 640KB -- but I've never owned a PC where gaming was reliable.

I haven't had a game that wouldn't 'just work' on a PC either.

Come on, either you're fabulously rich and constantly ahead of the hardware curve, or you've bought games that are too chuggy to enjoy on your hardware.

NB, I do actually play a few PC games still -- mostly freeware shooters like Warning Forever, that don't tax the hardware very much at all.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[Dahamma]

I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.

I'd say lately I have played about 60/40% PC/console games - in fact, I can't remember the last crash on a PC game (maybe Oblivion a couple months ago?) while PGR3 on the 360 has crashed on me a few times, and NHL 2K6 was a TOTAL disaster (maybe I'll try to get about $3 for it used once EA NHL 07 comes out tomorrow...)

I'd insert the obligatory joke about the 360 just being a Windows box anyway, blah, blah, so what's the difference, but it's really not... in fact, when both games crashed I was able to get back to the Dashboard, which I was somewhat impressed with for a console. I think it was more a matter of rushing some of the 360 titles out on the developers' parts than any fault of the console HW or OS. Which IMO has been one of the main differences between PC and console stability in the past - more thorough QA process. I think the other - predictable hardware - is going to be more of a problem in the future as developers port to every console they can find, spreading the testing a bit too thin...

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[slim]

1997 called. I wants it's 9 year old video games back.

Times have changed since 1997, both for PCs and consoles.


I might have got my numbering wrong; we're talking Escape from Monkey Island -- which was released in late 2000. Which is still nearly 6 years ago. God I feel old. I believe our PC was underspecced in 2000, so I bought the game 3 years later, when we bought a PC specifically for the purpose of gaming. So this would have been around 2003, using Windows XP.

I'll take some convincing that the stability of PC gaming has improved since then. This was a native Win32 application using DirectX under XP. Only version numbers have changed since then.

But more importantly, the problem is inherent in the way PCs are built. It's entirely possible that no QA department had ever tested these DirectX calls in exactly the same order, on exactly the same combination of motherboard, CPU, graphics card and PSU before. And when it doesn't work, you're basically in a world of finger-pointing where to prove each party's claim means spending more time and money (I became so convinced that my PSU was underpowering my graphics card that I bought a new one -- no dice; and with that money I could have bought a whole console game).

But more to the point, finding out whether things have improved is too damn expensive. If I spent the frankly ludicrous sum they're asking on a PS3, at least I know it'll work. If I spend the same money on a gaming PC, I strongly feel there's a serious risk that -- while perfectly capable of running ordinary desktop applications (just like a PC half the price) -- this thing won't be reliable for gaming.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[hattig]

The 9700 is only 4 years old, and can't handle any modern game at decent resolutions. It can do Doom III at 640x480, if that's what you want from your PC gaming experience. Three and a half years ago I bought a 9500 (not cheap at the time either), and slowly stopped playing PC games as they got jerkier and jerkier.

However you can upgrade to around 4x the power for under $100 now. The problem is that will require a new everything, because of the damned switch from AGP to PCIe. Oh, you can get modern cards in AGP format, at a 50% premium. Argh. And you have to be sure that you don't want to upgrade your PC in the near future, which is always at the back of any geeks mind. I know that a better graphics card + more memory would keep me sorted for a couple more years, but I want that dual-core beast!

Strategy games, with their reams of text and stats, are good on high definition displays - PC monitors for the majority of us. They're probably more playable on consoles now, if you've got a HDTV, but that's a big if.

FPSs could suddenly be better on the Wii, because of the controller. However ignoring that, a mouse and keyboard are much better than a standard console controller unless you are very good with your fingers. In which case I ask why you're playing console games and aren't out there pleasuring some nubile young pretty thing?

Some of his points are good - I don't want to sit down and deal with a PC in the evening if I just want to play a game. I will get a guaranteed quality of game with the console, given a sensible choice in game.

Me? I'm too stingy to buy the latest games, I'll quite happily wait for the price to drop. That also means my PC hardware requirements are a year out of date when it comes to PC games (currently playing Chronicles of Riddick, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 and Vampire Masquerade, with Quake 4 SE in the post) which saves me more money. Exceptions: Guitar Hero, GTA:SA and GT4, on the PS2 - all games with a long life and ongoing appeal.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[BrookHarty]

Whoa, Consoles just work? Ive had my fair share of xbox dvd-roms go bad, and PS/2 lock ups. To be honest, PC games are cheaper on sale week, and a PC can do a lot more than just games. And I havnt seen world of warcraft ported to xbox or ps2.

The games I've had to update where online games, all games I've bought for PC work out of the box, unless there are multiplayer patchs (which also include new maps/etc)...

While a console is nice for some games, I'd rather have a mouse+asdf keys over a joypad controller anyday.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[plague3106]

Either you're very, very lucky, or you're very new to it. It's probably 3 years or so since I gave up on PC gaming.

I've been gaming on the computer since before Wolf3D. As I said, its not just me either. None of my friends have been having all the problems you describe.

I'm far more technically adept than most -- and have been gaming since the 8 bit era (when games would "just work") and through the DOS era when you had to build boot floppies of various kinds to allow games to fit in their 640KB -- but I've never owned a PC where gaming was reliable.

Maybe you're not as technically adept as you think. If you were, you'd have a boot menu that properly setup the dos game by not loading drivers not needed. My gaming experience on the PC has been very reliable, such that I gave up consoles years ago (after the SNES).

Come on, either you're fabulously rich and constantly ahead of the hardware curve, or you've bought games that are too chuggy to enjoy on your hardware.

Its a myth that you need to upgrade your computer every year (not that current consoles last at most 3 years, before the next gen comes out). I stay one step behind the latest cutting edge machine, and can play all modern games just fine. I spent $150 in 2004 to upgrade my video card in my three year old computer to play doom 3. No, it wasn't set at the highest detail (and when doom was released, I don't think any computer could set the detail that high at the time0, but it was pretty high up.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[DragonWriter]

But the real decider is whether you prefer to play games sitting up at a desk, or slumped on an armchair. Console controllers aren't ideal in the former position, a keyboard and mouse are impractical in the latter.

Since I'm at home sick today, in my recliner couch, posting this on a laptop with my laser mouse sitting on the arm of the couch beside me, I have to disagree. With the right mouse, keyboard and mouse works fine "slumped in an armchair".

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right on the nail, brother.
These idiots who keep saying you have to 'constantly upgrade' your PC - bullshit. I have an Athlon 2500XP with a Radeon 9700 Pro, which I've had for two or three years (I can't remember). I can play Painkiller fine at 1280 x 1024, and no console controller can compare for FPS games, to a mouse and keyboard. FPS games are just not designed for consoles, and how people can play them on them is beyond me. I will be upgrading my PC early next year. I will sell the motherboard, processor, graphics card, and HD, for about £130. I will buy new ones for about £250 - £300. That means they will have cost me about £170. For 3 years' use. £63 a year. Peanuts. Who are these idiots who keep spending so much on absolutely top of the range components, when you only get 10% faster graphics/processing/etc.etc.?

Finally - we really don't need games to have any more detail in them than they already do. I never once while playing Painkiller have thought that the graphics needed some more detail - nobody can take it in while PLAYING.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[azureice]

Bullshit. I've still got a 9700 Pro in my rig, and it runs Doom 3 perfectly. Not at max detail, but very high, and with some AA. I run it at 1280x1024.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, what are you running, a Crapintosh?

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[nsmike]

I can run Oblivion on 1024x768 on that machine, as well as Doom 3. I have since built a new one, in prep for Windows Vista, and therefore have gone on the cheap side for a vid card solution with a 7900 GT, so as not to feel too bad about replacing a fairly new vid card when DX10 rolls around.

But make sure you actually HAVE a 9700 to test on before you start tossing random stats out there.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[Emetophobe]

I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.

What unstable games have you been playing? Or maybe your system is unstable to begin with.. The only game I've played in the last 3 years that is prone to crashing is Oblivion.

Please list all the games that cause your computer to crash on a regular basis, I really would like to know.

Standalone devices with predictable specs are just more stable than the zoo of general purpose computing systems, be they desktop, laptop, or mobile phone. Keep games where they belong.

Apparently you've never had an xbox crash before...

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[hattig]

Doom III ran reasonably at 640x480 on a 9500, and jerked like an electrocuted eel at 800x600. The 9500 was exactly half of a 9700 Pro when suitably overclocked. As it ran other games perfectly I can only assume that Doom III really suffered under a certain minimum of capability which was between the 9500 and the 9700 Pro.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Disclaimer: It's not so much that I'm disagreeing with you as that what you said got me thinking about the way people argue about the topic in general.

Maybe you're not as technically adept as you think. If you were, you'd have a boot menu that properly setup the dos game by not loading drivers not needed.

Yeah, there were a lot of useful little things like that you could do to make your life easier. On the other hand, you've never had to with consoles. They don't tend to need updated software or new hardware or to be properly configured for things to run properly, because they just work because they're all the same (No, I don't need people to point out exceptions, thanks; I have an N64 with the memory expansion, and that was an (arguably) stupid idea. Developers hardly use things like that if they aren't included with the console. See also: PS2 hard drive). Of course, one of the tradeoffs is that you've never been able to get a fancy new video card for them, for example, and until recently, you haven't been able to get new content or mods for games, while at least as far back as things like Doom, there was a pretty good community of people trading WAD files.

(not that current consoles last at most 3 years, before the next gen comes out)

Now that's just not even true. The average time between console generations since the original NES came out has been about five years, which is plenty of time to get a lot of use out of each set of hardware, just like you don't need to upgrade your PC constantly, either.

I own more than half a dozen consoles and handhelds from the past 20 years right now, am going to buy a Wii, and am in the middle of putting together a new PC for gaming. I played PC and Mac games growing up, most consoles that have come out along the way, and a little stuff in arcades, too. You know what? They're all good (except for the ones that suck; we won't talk about those). I might not like what some of the companies do sometimes, or some of the hardware might be better or worse than others at other times, but when it comes to the games, are they fun? Yeah. A lot of them are, on each of those systems, from all points in time. In my experience, at least.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[geminidomino]

Ditto. Recent lockups on me.

XBX360 - Oblivion
Xbox - KOTOR
PS2 - God of War
GCN - Zelda Collection - Majora's Mask.

So much for the stability of consoles. :(

(Disclaimer: I also have a high-end gaming PC. I go where the games I like are.)

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[plague3106]

Yeah, there were a lot of useful little things like that you could do to make your life easier. On the other hand, you've never had to with consoles. They don't tend to need updated software or new hardware or to be properly configured for things to run properly, because they just work because they're all the same (No, I don't need people to point out exceptions, thanks; I have an N64 with the memory expansion, and that was an (arguably) stupid idea. Developers hardly use things like that if they aren't included with the console. See also: PS2 hard drive). Of course, one of the tradeoffs is that you've never been able to get a fancy new video card for them, for example, and until recently, you haven't been able to get new content or mods for games, while at least as far back as things like Doom, there was a pretty good community of people trading WAD files.

Lets also not forget that the best gaming computer also has many other uses. Can you browse the web on a console? Track your savings and mortgage accounts? Write email? IM others? Write a book report, contract, or recipe? Do your taxes on a console? Make your own games? Edit music and video?

See, that's the value in a computer over a console that articles like this always ignore. Computers sometimes require extra work, but for the most part, they ARE plug and play now. In DOS, you had to edit files and pick and choose which drivers to load. Now you turn off the computer, insert the new device, turn it back on and it asks you for the disk. Pretty simple if you ask me.

When the console is 'expired' that is nothign you can do for it. You put it away and it collects dust in the closet. After all, how many consoles do you have room for on one TV anyway? With a computer, you may have to buy a new video card and you're good for a few more years. Buy a few more components (MB, RAM, CPU) in those couple of years and your good for a long while. Far cheaper than buying everything again.

Now that's just not even true. The average time between console generations since the original NES came out has been about five years, which is plenty of time to get a lot of use out of each set of hardware, just like you don't need to upgrade your PC constantly, either.

Then once the new console is realease, the old is worthless and collects dust. Game development for the older platform is promptly stopped. Also the prices of consoles have been steadly rising to revile that of mid end computers. When your PC is obsolete, many of the parts can be moved to the new system. If you don't want to do that, you still have something that can do email and internet. It doesn't become totally worthless.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[gauauu]

When once the new console is realease, the old is worthless and collects dust.

Are you serious? I play my older consoles as much or more as my newer ones. Just because a newer one is out doesn't mean you don't still want to play the games from the old ones. I have as much fun with my NES and SNES as I do with my dreamcast. And I have as much fun with my dreamcast as I did my Xbox.

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[espressojim]

You said "I'd still be constantly saving in Monkey Island 3"

Monkey island 3 is 1997. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curse_of_Monkey_I sland

I'd guess that 95+% of game users get to play games without major show stopping bugs on average for a game. Actually, I'd guess that the number is higher than that.

Also, if you're doing a 'home brew' of your system, then it's kinda your responsibility to test and make sure your system works, not the game manufacturers. I know it can be complicated (tech changes all the time, and if you don't keep up, then homebrew can be difficult.) Still, for around $600, you can buy a system that 'just works', and does more than play games.

Given all that, I'm still heavily considering a Wii, so don't think I'm anti-console. I'm just anti "I tried it 9 years ago, and it didn't work, so things must be THE EXACT SAME now". :)

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Lets also not forget that the best gaming computer also has many other uses.

Indeed, and I use my computer for a lot of different things. For one thing, you don't have to convince me of anything. If you didn't notice, I happen to like computers and consoles; that's why I have both. On the other hand, does being able to see the status my bank account or write a book report on my computer make it any better at playing games? Not last time I checked. It's certainly a very important additional value, and I spend dozens of hours a week doing things with my computer (not surprising for someone hanging around on Slashdot), but most of those things don't affect my gaming experience in any way and aren't directly involved in a comparison.

For me, personally, they detract from it sometimes. When I've got a bunch of stuff running on my computer, some of which might even be considered "real work", sometimes I can't just start up a game in the middle of all of it if I want to take a break, depending on the game and what kinds of other stuff I already have going. I will be very happy when I have a second computer again and I can un-consolidate some of the stuff I do. Everything I work on, all my music, all my movies, all my non-console games, and all other media are all through the same computer. Yeah, computers can do a lot of stuff, but what if someone else (not necessarily me) wants to do something else at the same time?

When the console is 'expired' that is nothign you can do for it. You put it away and it collects dust in the closet. After all, how many consoles do you have room for on one TV anyway? With a computer, you may have to buy a new video card and you're good for a few more years. Buy a few more components (MB, RAM, CPU) in those couple of years and your good for a long while. Far cheaper than buying everything again.

Well, at my last apartment, I think we had room for every Nintendo console from the NES to the GameCube (partly because the SNES through GameCube can use the same cable if you swap it between them, since you're not going to use them at the same time), a PS2 (plus PS1 games), and a DreamCast just fine, and they all got used (plus a PC in the next room for other games, and my laptop that I usually dragged in there).

There must be some reason that it was fairly popular to have an NES or SNES in college dorms a few years ago (might still be, but I haven't been to one since my younger sister graduated), emulation is popular on PCs, and Nintendo and Sony are both offering download services for old games with their new consoles. For that matter, there must be some reason that DOSbox and ScummVM (both for playing old PC games) keep getting discussed on Slashdot, and projects like The Ur-Quan Masters port old PC games like StarCon2 (which I have very fond memories of and replay every few years) and get tons of downloads.

And how many normal, average people replace the motherboards and CPUs in their computers instead of buying a new computer after a few years? You might. I might. But people who just buy computers to have a computer, to "use the Internets" and play games? Some upgrading is definitely done, but you might be giving them a little too much credit. I know my dad has bought more RAM a few times and maybe a hard drive once, but more than that might be pushing it. Heh.

Then once the new console is realease, the old is worthless and collects dust. Game development for the older platform is promptly stopped. Also the prices of consoles have been steadly rising to revile that of mid end computers. When your PC is obsolete, many of the parts can be moved to the new system. If you don't want to do that, you still have something that can do email and internet. It doesn't become totally worthless.

The old one isn't worthless, like I said, but it is definitely true that game development does start to taper off. It doesn't stop immediately, but after a year or so, it tends to usuall

Re:Got tired of games crashing my computer

[plague3106]

Most people don't have enough room for five different consoles hooked up at once. Most also will not hookup / unhookup to switch consoles. I'm sure you're a minority.

Pointless

[colonslashslash]

Neither is 'better'. They both have their merits, and generalising by claiming one platform is inherently better than the other is just stupid IMO. Serious gamers will have both anyway.

Generally, I'm more of a PC gamer, but that's because I've always had a lot of PC hardware for work, home entertainment (yes, that's one way of saying high definition streaming porn) and the intertubes, so it's easier to grab a game for one of my boxes rather than run out and buy a console. Saying that, I still have quite a few consoles from years past. The NES still gets cracked out from time to time when I'm feeling nostalgic.

Re:Pointless

[Dinosaur Neil]

true.dat

I "gave up" on my PC a couple years ago (for the same reasons as the writer in the original article) and bought a PS2. I found that, for the Japanese RPG's I like, the console is near perfect. But I've also tried shooters and found that, well, I suck at the console versions. It's very discouraging to consistantly miss the proverbial broad side of the barn on console games when I was getting 90% head shots on the PC version. RTS games have similar control problems.

OTOH, I miss the "save anywhere" option on most of my PC games. And the simplicity of setup; for most console games, setup consists of me turning off the useless controller vibration option. And maybe dailing the BGM down a notch or two. Period.

The end result is that I do both, though I often wait for at least a couple new games of worth before doing any upgrading on my PC. And I'm hoping that the Wii controller will address a lot of my interface limitations issues.

Re:Pointless

[slim]

OTOH, I miss the "save anywhere" option on most of my PC games.

In most games, at least nowadays, this is a matter of game design not of technical limitation. Anyone who's abused the save state feature in an emulator can tell you how it can remove the challenge (and therefore the longevity) from certain games.

Frequent saving can also break the sense of immersion. I could only progress in Half Life (on PS2!) by saving often, but remembering to do so would always take me out of the moment.

Re:Pointless

[Fallingcow]

Frequent saving can also break the sense of immersion. I could only progress in Half Life (on PS2!) by saving often, but remembering to do so would always take me out of the moment.

I thought that FarCry handled this very well. It had autosave points, which usually annoy me; these however, were done well enough, and occured frequently enough, that one could get up from a game and go do something else without feeling like a bunch of play time had been wasted ("oh well, I guess I'll have to play that whole two minutes over again") and immersion was only broken if you were killed and had to reload from the last point, which is pretty much an unavoidable problem.

I think that they added save-anywhere capability in a patch (and there may have been a console hack or something that allowed the same thing before that, I don't remember), but if I go back and play it again one of these days, I'll just leave the autosave enabled.

Nothing to see here...

[bjk002]

Pure opinion piece. Little to no substance. Completely lacking valid/verifyable evidence to back up claims.

Smells like a console sales pitch.

Why is /. wasting our time with these?

Move along...

Re:Nothing to see here...

[advocate_one]

Pure opinion piece. Little to no substance. Completely lacking valid/verifyable evidence to back up claims.

I take it you don't own a console then...

Personally, I expect a game to work when I stick the disk in the box and don't expect to have to hunt down patches and drivers. Also I expect it to run fine without having to turn the effects down.

in my humble experience, there are two types of gamer:
(i) those who have to brag about their frame rates on the latest game and how much they had to spend just to get it running,
(ii) those who just want to get on with it...

I'm in the second group.

Digg me up!

[Square Snow Man]

This is not news, this is some sort of Digg like `news' post. Please refrain from posting n reason why foo is better then bar posts. I hope slashdot readers agree with me.

Re:Digg me up!

[TommydCat]

This is not news, this is some sort of Digg like `news' post. Please refrain from posting n reason why foo is better then bar posts. I hope slashdot readers agree with me.

I whole-heartedly agree for the following reasons:

1. Lists are dumb because real journalists can form complete thoughts in the form of sentences and paragraphs instead of bullet-pointing single ideas.

2. Said paragraphs would give the news article flow and meaning conveying a complete argument instead of mindlessly listing items.

3. An actual article instead of a list would take more room allowing more intermediate pages of ads to be served up.

4. People tend to grow bored of lists about the fourth item down.

5. I bet you're not even reading this point.

6. Mouse + keyboard is infinitely easier to enter a /. reply with than a console controller and a "visual keyboard".

7. It's all about my C64 games being better than your Apple II games -- PC games are teh win, TFA is arguing on the wrong side of the wrong point to begin with!

So in conclusion and for the points listed above, macaroni definitely needs more cheese as well being dumb to post "news" with no substance and all points just to serve up more ads.

Whatever floats your boat

[LParks]

"the other side of the eternal debate over gaming preference -- consoles vs. PCs."

What's really to debate here? Its a preference; both have advantages and disdvantages, and people like them for different reasons. Gamers with enough money have both because neither is quantifiably better.

This article is based on a false dichotomy

[Lex-Man82]

Why does one have to be better? I have a fairly powerful PC and an X box which I intend to upgrade with a 360 sometime soon. I find that some games are bettered played on the PC mostly fps's, rts's and rpgs while other genres are better on the console such as third person games, racing games and anything even mildly arcady.

Conveniently left out....

[ThinkWeak]

So the flamewar has been going on for a few years now, but the one key difference that gives the edge to the PC gamers is the ability to patch a game. Personally, I've made the switch to console games for basically the same reason as the article author - time, money, convenience. The one major problem with console games is the speed at which patches are created for them - aside from the fact that patches are needed.

We are talking about console games, and they need patches today. Why? Because games are being rushed to market. Imagine buying your nintendo, getting it home, popping in Super Mario Bros, and every time you jumped on the flag at the end of the first level - your game froze. That is basically where we are heading with console games, as it is becoming obvious the mentality is - we'll put it out there, they'll buy it, and then we'll worry about fixing it.

Now, after accepting the fact that console games NEED patches these days...you would think that by having a standardized platform you would be able to patch a problem with a game relatively quickly. This is also not the case, as typically this patch is given a low priority and even after it is created, it needs to pass through "QA" before it is even given to the public. Which takes a few weeks, or months.

With console systems being packed with hard drives being standard and online play becoming the norm in every household - are we as consumers going to put up with this laziness?

If the pain of having to wait for a patch to play your new game vastly outweighs the pain of building/buying a new computer system, people may start migrating back.

Re:Conveniently left out....

[Anonymous Coward]

The one major problem with console games is the speed at which patches are created for them - aside from the fact that patches are needed.

I have a solution for that don't use a console made by microsoft, because thats just like jumping from a PC to a PC with a joystick attached to it.

Re:Conveniently left out....

[Rude Turnip]

"So the flamewar has been going on for a few years now, but the one key difference that gives the edge to the PC gamers is the ability to patch a game."

My XBox 360 notifies me if a patch is available as soon as I pop in a game DVD and gives me the ability to download & apply it now or wait until later.

Re:Conveniently left out....

[loki_ninboy]

Actually, some console games have patching functions built into them. Look at EverQuest Online Adventures for the PS2. Sure the save file takes up half of your memory card, but when SOE send out a new patch, your game gets upgraded.

Also there is patching of sorts for when EA Sports releases new roster updates.

On the other side, you have the 360 and XBOX Live, which does patch games. I can think of at least three games that have received honest to goodness patches. PGR3, Oblivion, and Major Leagues Baseball 2k6 each received PC style patches. And don't forgoet about the "smaller patches" of the downloadable content available over Live.

Re:Conveniently left out....

[sqlrob]

When (currently if, because of the patches), the XBox 360 isn't connected to the net, how do you get patches?

The patch free is a *plus* in my book.

Re:Conveniently left out....

[Rude Turnip]

You could ask the same question of a PC. The XBox 360 is geared toward being connected to the internet, and ideally (IMO), to an HDTV. In my case, I just plug it into the switch sitting on top of my entertainment center, which also handles the networking for my Tivo and PS2. PS2 games, btw, can take patches from the net (ie Star Wars Battlefront), but it kind of irks me since the patches get stored to those relatively expensive memory cards.

Re:Conveniently left out....

[sqlrob]

I do. I will not connect a Windows PC to the internet in my house, period. Since most things require patches, some on release day, I stopped bothering. That, and invasive copy protection, and I just said forget it, no more PC gaming.

Some genres work better than others

[Rik Sweeney]

Some genres just don't work on Consoles and some just don't work on PCs.

For instance, Street Fighter or Tekken just don't work on PCs and RTS don't work on Consoles. One genre that I think works well on both platforms though are First Person Shooters. I really don't think anyone can say that Golden Eye didn't work on the N64.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[Square Snow Man]

I don't know about you but RTS games work perfectly fine on game consoles, atleast the once i tried. Did you ever play command&conquer red alert on the first Sony Playstation? It was one of the better games.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[hal2814]

"Some genres just don't work on Consoles and some just don't work on PCs."

You have to be more specific than that. I've got a MAME box running Tekken 2 and Marvel Super Heroes just as good as my arcade boards can. It's a matter of default controls. PC games are typically written to be controlled by keyboard and mouse since that's the lowest common denominator.

I had to hack up a USB gamepad and solder in leads to get some decent arcade controls in MAME. Now the MAME setup is pretty sweet even if my controllers are the size of a shoe box but most folks aren't going to go to such lengths.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[AgentDib]

FPS play on a console is wildly different compared to play on PC. Even in cases where the exact same game is released for both, the control differences turn them into completely different games. With the standard WASD mouse and keyboard setup gamers are far more accurate, leading to hit boxes that leave little room for error. Weapons also tend to leave little room for error with a focus on projectiles with minimal spread and instant impact.

Whether you prefer the console or the PC for something like Halo2 is determined by what kind of gameplay you enjoy, but enough "hardcore" FPS gamers prefer the microtwitch style that PC's will largely be considered superior.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[spyrochaete]

You're overgeneralizing. The issue is whether designers write their games with the system's control scheme in mind. RTS was hugely popular on the Gameboy Advance, and thanks to the touch screen on the DS the genre is even more of a hit on consoles. Any game can work on any platform as long as it considers the strengths of the user interface.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[Firefly1]

For instance, Street Fighter or Tekken just don't work on PCs...

Why not? Surely it can't be a matter of performance: if it can handle something like Dawn of War or Half-Life 2, it's a safe bet to say Tekken would be no problem.
Controls? A word and an acronym: USB gamepad. I have one of those for those occasions I crank up ZSNES to play Super Metroid or Ranma 1/2: Chougi Rambuhen or whatnot, and it works just fine, thank you very much.

...and RTS don't work on Consoles.

I can't dispute this point; the only one I've seen which comes close is AvP: Extinction, and that is because in terms of scale and gameplay it's closer to Dawn of War or the Ground Control titles than, say, RA2.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[MaWeiTao]

I have an adapter that lets me use the PS2 controller with my PC. Some games even take advantage of the rumble feature. This means I can have the same exact gameplay experience offered by any console.

I agree that consoles allow for a more sociable gameplay experience, but that's only because of the physical arrangement of computer equipment. I can go out and buy a 20" or larger monitor, hide the case somewhere, get a cordless keyboard and mouse (or some device better suited to be used from the sofa) and set up as many game controllers as I want. With that, I've effectively recreated the console experience with my PC.

This of course, assumes I'm playing a game originally designed with the console in mind, of which there are plenty. When I want to go back to the standard PC fare, I also have the option.

On the other hand, I don't see consoles provided that sort of capability any time soon. Some genres are limited on PCs simply because developers dont bother with them, but some genres don't exist for consoles because of hardware limitations or because the platform simply isn't conducive to them.

The argument that PC equipment has to be upgraded on a yearly basis is nonsense, not even worth arguing. I suppose if you want to keep running every current release at maximum framerates that may be true. But you can pull back on detail settings and have a current game run well and still look pretty decent. And regardless, there are console games out there that cause slow down and in that case there's nothing you can do about it.

The article posted last week on the top selling PC games demonstrates that there's a lot of variety in PC gaming. The same few contrived genres may get all the attention but the variety is there. Consoles offer something different only in comparison to PCs. But each console seems to have carved it's own niche in gaming. Buy any one console and you're going to be relatively limited in your options, except maybe for the PS2 which has such an large library. And, because PC games aren't limited by all the ridiculous licensing agreements it allows small, indie developers to thrive ensuring you'll find stuff on PCs you wont find anywhere else.

This isn't to say consoles don't have advantages. If all you care about is gaming, a console is a far better purchase. Consoles are significantly less expensive than PCs, although even that seems to be changing rather quickly. There are indeed numerous great games that are available only for consoles. And it really a bit easier to just sit back and play a game with a console, although other than the installation process things have gotten to be rather seamless on PCs as well.

The PC has far more potential as a gaming platform than any console, but in the end that distinction is irrelevant. It comes down to what best suits the consumer and which platform gets the most attention. In the end it comes down to what you're looking for out of a gaming system.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the fighting games vs RTS, they only work in certain obvious ways that make them only playable on certain systems. I disagree with the FPS though, I play them all the time on the PC and on the PS2 I can't hit the broadside of a barn with the controller, in fact I love FPS's but I have long since given up on playing them on consoles, I just wait until they come out on the PC

Re:Some genres work better than others

[Anonymous Coward]

RTS on GBA? Sucessful?
I played Mech Platoon, it was rubbish, and not much of a sucess either AFAIK. I'm not aware of any others, nor of any on the DS at all.

Of course the GBA and DS rock for turn-based strategy like Advance Wars.

Re:Some genres work better than others

[tepples]

I've got a MAME box running Tekken 2 and Marvel Super Heroes just as good as my arcade boards can.

Is it hard to get into MAME? How long did it take you to dump your arcade boards' ROMs to your PC to run them in MAME?

Re:Some genres work better than others

[CronoCloud]

PSone mouse support too, but you don't really need it, the mouse just makes the UI a touch more convenient

Re:Some genres work better than others

[mgblst]

Golden eye didn't work on the N64. But to be honest, someone told me later that I was trying to put it in upside down, but still, count yourself told!

Re:Some genres work better than others

[hal2814]

I had someone else do it for me. I don't have the equipment for reading the neccessary chips. Once you get a proper ROM dump, it is exceptionally easy.

-1 Flamewar

[shoolz]

I prefer smoked turkey sandwiches over grilled cheese, therefore smoked turkey is better.

Re:-1 Flamewar

[Andrewkov]

Your opinion is wrong. Grilled cheese is way better than turkey. Ah yes, Grilled Cheese, the American quesadilla.

Re:-1 Flamewar

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? When was the last time you saw virgin mary on a smoked turkey sandwich?

Grilled cheese is better because virgin mary appears on them.

Re:-1 Flamewar

[RxScram]

I agree! Grilled cheese is significantly tastier than turkey. Much worse for you, but still tastier.

What??

[nascarguy27]

FTA:
"7. Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said."
No porn, WTH??? That's the only reason I buy games. Crap!

Define this debate?

[Savage-Rabbit]

I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it.

#define PC_V_GC_DEBATE "/dev/flamewar"

There you go...

Social experience... right

[Jboost]

8: Games look better in high-def...from the couch. Yes, yes. We all know your $400 video card can output higher resolution than my equally expensive console.

Does that include the HD TV?

But PC gaming is uncomfortable and hardly a social experience (with people in the same room). If you sit at a desk all day in front of a computer, why on earth would you try to relax at home in front of one? What better way to unwind with the boys than to kick back on the sofa with a few cold ones, controllers in hand? I can think of none other (that don't involve dollar bills and copious amounts of regret).

Sitting in front of a TV together is not a bonding experience; it is a distancing experience, a way in which people can cohabit a room without actually having to engage each other or connect personally.

Re:Social experience... right

[Cadallin]

You've obviously never played Mario Kart, or Super Smash Brothers both of which are excellent social experiences, as are most Nintendo party games.

Re:Social experience... right

[twistedsymphony]

In the same way you can argue that a PC can be used for more then just gaming an HDTV can be use for more then just gaming as well... HOWEVER the $400 graphics card in the article is rarely used for more then just gaming, and while all it takes is the purchase of a console to turn your existing entertainment center into a gaming platform, you typically have to buy more then just a video card to convert your office/internet machine into a gaming machine.

I also don't understand your logic about how friends gathering on a couch is somehow "distancing", if you're going to play games against each other gathering on a couch is far more personal then playing against each other online, and certainly a whole lot easier to plan and easier to make frequent then a LAN party. It's certainly more interactive then watching a football game or a movie together.

Re:Social experience... right

[Kazzahdrane]

Don't forget Lego Star Wars and the Timesplitters series. Co-op gaming is one of the most fun things about multiplayer!

Re:Social experience... right

[Eccles]

if you're going to play games against each other gathering on a couch is far more personal then playing against each other online

I know I'd certainly love to smack a few griefers in online games...

I want my 2 minutes back

[Anonymous Coward]

that and the ad impressions I gave this horrid site.

(even if I agree, a little)

To each their own.

[Broken scope]

I play both, i love both. However eventually both the PC and the console will die. All it will take is a more direct user interface and a much better platform . It will also require the end of the graphics card race, that plateau has to be reached, because that is what seperates the console from the PC, the upgrade race. The Keyboard the mouse and the gamepad have had their day. They will be replaced before I die. Hopefully within the next 15 years. Wait i have prediction, 3 more console generations TOPS. Most likely 2. Then a platform that is somewhere bettween the 2 will appear, killing both the PC and the console as we know it.

Re:To each their own.

[ElleyKitten]

Then a platform that is somewhere bettween the 2 will appear, killing both the PC and the console as we know it.

I hope that doesn't happen. PCs and consoles have their strengths at opposite ends. A PC is customizable, you can do anything with it, whether you want to upgrade to improve your game experience, or do something non-gaming, or whatever. A console isn't upgradable, but it will always play your games. You can't make a spreadsheet on it, but you don't have to analyze your system specs before buying a game. Even if the hardware race slows down, there will still be options (do I want a tiny PC to just do simple things, or an expensive PC that does everything?) and that will continue to define the difference between a console and a PC. Do I want a PC that's only sorta customizable? A console that I have to scan for viruses? No.

Re:To each their own.

[Lonewolf666]

The end of the graphics card race might not be that far off. I guess once most systems can handle HDTV or 1600x1200 at decent frame rates, we will be at a point where further improvements won't be much of a selling point. Like few people bother with audio DVDs over CDs.
With the PS3 this may be closer than you think on the console side (sorry I'm not up to date about XBox II, does it do HDTV?). On the PC side, high end graphics cards already handle 1600x1200 at decent frame rates. One or two more generations, and such cards will be quite affordable.

But I do not think the PC will die, as it has a lot of other uses beside gaming. The "media center" PC in the living room and the console might merge to some universal entertainment machine, but I don't think that PCs in general will disappear.

And on the controller front, some real innovation would be needed. Which is difficult to predict.

Re:To each their own.

[Broken scope]

The reason the console will die is because computers will finnaly come to a point where they are just as easy to use a a console. You didn't read my post, Computers will have to become MUCH MUCH better before this happens. This means windows will no longer rule though.

Re:To each their own.

[Broken scope]

It won't be a Personal Computer eventually. Your house might have a computer, but you won't walk up to it hit the power button and sit down, it won't be the Beige box anymore. it won't be persoanl.

Re:To each their own.

[ElleyKitten]

The reason the console will die is because computers will finnaly come to a point where they are just as easy to use a a console. You didn't read my post, Computers will have to become MUCH MUCH better before this happens. This means windows will no longer rule though.

I used to have an old computer that was as easy to use as a console - I stuck the disc with the program I wanted to use in the drive and turned it on. When I wanted a different program, I switched the discs and restarted. Just like a console. Would I go back to that? No. I'm all for computers becomeing easier, but a console's level of easiness is on a whole different plane. A console is an appliance, like a toaster or DVD player (indeed, some even are DVD players). A PC can be a lot of things. It can be a console or a DVD player, it can be a journal, it can be used to program and design web pages, to communicate with people, to record and remaster your band's new song, to just about anything. Maybe most people just want to write some email and visit MySpace. Make that easy for them, but don't take away all the options that make a PC a PC. A console is a simple device that does only one thing, but does it very well. A PC is a complex device that does many things. Any hybridization of the two would defeat the point of each. Unless you want my old Apple II. But, isn't the fact that Apple hasn't gone back to being console-like in their quest (well, marketing hype) for the simple computer a sign that maybe computers aren't consoles, and simple for a computer shouldn't be simple in the sense of a console?

Re:To each their own.

[Broken scope]

So you are saying the computers will never get ton the point where you put in your game (or download or stream) and it puts some stuff on whatever is used for long term storage by then and plays with little or no configuration?

Re:To each their own.

[ElleyKitten]

So you are saying the computers will never get ton the point where you put in your game (or download or stream) and it puts some stuff on whatever is used for long term storage by then and plays with little or no configuration?

I'm saying that computers will never sit next to your TV, only to be turned on when you want to unwind for an hour or so with Final Fantasy XXVIII and then turned back off again. Downloading and installing Puzzle Pirates (the last PC game I installed) didn't take much effort, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets easier and easier, but that doesn't make my PC a console.

Re:To each their own.

[ElleyKitten]

It won't be a Personal Computer eventually. Your house might have a computer, but you won't walk up to it hit the power button and sit down, it won't be the Beige box anymore. it won't be persoanl.

So what do you think it will be?

Re:To each their own.

[Broken scope]

I don't know, im not good a predicting the future, but computers will change, they won't be this way forever. Once games hit the graphical plateau, they will be limited by the interface. The keyboard and mouse and the gamepad are limited interfaces, with the change of that interface. It might be that you put on a pair of small glasses that act a like a monitor, and the head rest looks at your brain and you control it directly. I don't know, i think the interface will be limited by how willing people are to have a computer "in their head". It might be a small implant or it might be completly external. There will come a time when having a second box just to play games will go away.

Apples and Oranges

[beavt8r]

Isn't comparing the two like comparing above fruits? There are certain advantages of consoles and PCs. PCs, IMHO, are better suited for first-person shooters. Keyboard and mouse are more suited for that type of game. I know you can get adapters and what not, but I'm going by what you get straight out of the box, so to speak. Upgrading is another thing. PCs can be upgraded as you need to/as you can, consoles cannot. But, with consoles being solely for gaming, less hardware is required in a way. No overhead "OS" in a sense. No other firewalls, anti-virus, etc... So I agree with one of the previous comments. What exactly is better ?

a sweet computer will get the girls.. wait no it w

[not already in use]

I've been saying this for years. Case in point, Halo 2 on Xbox vs Halo 2 on PC. You need damn near twice the processing power to get the same results. Windows is a horribly inneficient OS to run games on top of. Also, the value of computer hardware depreciates MUCH faster than that of console hardware. 10 months ago, the XBOX 360 cost $400. Depreciation over the last year? $0. Now, take that $400 video card you bought 10 months ago. You're lucky if its worth half that.

Console w/o cartridge = computer (think load time)

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I quit buying consoles when they quit distributing games in cartridges. To me, it was all about the load time. (Yes, I watch my DVDs with a player that skips all the legal shit, menus, etc. too.)

Article text (the only almost-signficant page)

[ben there...]

I guess in some small way I can understand a PC gamer's plight. I mean, if I shelled out enough scratch to bail out a small third-world nation I'd take every opportunity to justify my purchase...to everyone I meet. It would make me feel less insecure. And anyone who disagrees with me I'll call a peon, poor, or just plain ignorant. Ok, I'm being unjustly harsh here, but do you recognize the attitude? Every time a hardcore PC gamer blows his load about why PC gaming is the bee's knees you leave the forum feeling like a second class citizen, as if not spending two-month's salary on a computer makes you some sort of toothless Sims-expansion-buying rube. Not so, I say!

"Only one more component and my PC of Doom will be complete! Shashashashasha!"

Here are 10 reasons why console gaming rules the school.

1. It's cheaper. Don't let a PC gamer delude you into thinking that console gaming is more expensive--it's just not true. Console manufacturers take a loss on every machine sold and make up the difference in software sales. When you buy a console, you're getting the machine for cheaper than it costs them to make it. Not so with a gaming PC. You're paying a premium. Sure, some console games might retail for $10 higher than the PC equivalent, but budget-minded shoppers need only wait for a markdown to score some sweet deals.

2. Every game is guaranteed to work. Ever try to convince that pimply-faced teenager at the game store that your computer won't run that hot new game you bought yesterday? He doesn't care. "Read the friggin' box," is what he'll say. "No returns on opened PC games." This won't happen in the console realm. If you own "system X" every game made for it will perform the same way. Guaranteed.

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good. Don't believe the screenshots on the back of a PC game box. Unless your machine resembles the WOPR from War Games, you probably don't have enough juice to run it with all the settings turned up to 11. On a console game, you might have the option to adjust brightness or resolution (Xbox 360) but otherwise you get exactly what was advertised.

4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison. Whether you're hot for Mario, Kratos, or Ryu Hayabusa, you'll find their newest releases on consoles. Sure, the PC has some exclusive titles, but sooner or later they'll find their way onto your living room television since that's where the money is at.

5. Xbox Live. Aside from Battlefield 2, I can't think of any online game that's currently better on PC (get to work, DICE). Yes, many PC games let you play online multiplayer for free, but the experience is varied (and in some cases, atrocious). With a standardized online service like Xbox Live, all of your online bouts have a unified matchmaking system, friends list features, voice over IP chat, and more, and it all works regardless of what game you're playing. Hell, you could be watching a movie and your pal playing a game and you can send game and chat invites. When's the last time a PC game let you do that?

6. Backwards compatibility. When I upgraded from Windows 98 SE to WinXP, I lost the ability to play some of my favorite classic games. Sure, there are workarounds for some of them, but others I can only play on my pre-Y2K rig. Sony's handled backwards compatibility quite well with their consoles, even making it hard for the competition to match. And you don't have to futz with configuration files to get them to work.

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said.

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch. Yes, yes. We all know your $400 video card can output higher resolution than my equally expensive console. But PC gaming is uncomfortable and hardly a social experience (with people in the same room). If you

Re:Article text (the only almost-signficant page)

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 is a myth. There has yet to be a sucessful consol that sold for a loss over its lifetime. The ratio of cost of the consol vs the profit per game is far too high for this strategy to work. FOr the xbox MS would have had to sell 10+ games per consol before ever seeing any money which is why they lost billions on the XBox.

#2 is flat out not true. There have been tons of games out there that were buggy as hell. See KOTR for a high profile example. You also cant patch consol games.

#3 Who ever said the screenshots on the back of a consol box were from actual game play. I dont know about you but Half Life 2 looks great on my 4 year old machine. As good as anything from the last consol generation.

#4 False. The PC has as many, if not more exclusive games then the consol. Consol games are ported to the PC all the time. PC games are rarely ported to consols in any form that is half decent.

#5 Exverything Xbox live offers you have been able to do on a PC for years. I was using VOIP, friends lists, and playing online years before the XBox even came out.

#6 So far there have been exactly 2 consols that have come out with backwards compatibility. Not only that XBox 360 isnt even totaly backwards compatible. You can play nearly any PC game that has ever come out on your PC and most consol games too.

#7 PS3 and Xbox 360 both come with ads and spywear built in. The Xbox360 is recording every game you play, every movie you watch and every song you listen to on it and broadcasting it to the world. You havent seen those adds on your xbox live screen? Also no game that I know has ever come with porn unless you wanted it there in the first place.

#8 Every modern video card can output to your tv. Hell, my old ass Radeon 8500 can do it.

#9 You can use any controller you want on your pc, even that ps2 or xbox 360 control that you seem so fond of.

#10 Props to nintendo for doing something gutzy and different but gyroscopic mice have been around for years. In fact Nintendo bought a company that specialized in gyroscopic mice to help then bring it to thier consol.

Re:Article text (the only almost-signficant page)

[Anonymous Coward]

> So far there have been exactly 2 consols that have come out with
> backwards compatibility

Not really true. The Atari 7800 was perhaps the first console to come out with true backwards compatibility. But there have always been attempts at backwards compatibility ever since there have been consoles. Look at the Atari 2600 "adapters" for the Colecovision and the Intellivision. (Was there one for the Atari 5200 as well?) There was something similar for Master System games on later Sega boxes.

And that's not even counting the PS2 and X360.

Re:Article text (the only almost-signficant page)

[Chosen Reject]

1. It's cheaper for games, yes. But what about everything else you want to do? You know that whole "surf the web" thing, write some kind of document, check your email, etc. Let's say you get a new Wii at $250 and a cheap Dell at ~$300. So you are already at $550. The other day I priced out a computer from newegg for $700 that would be sufficient to play video games now and for the next 3-4 years. Plus it'll be able to do all those things most people do on their computers as well as all the things I do on computers. So a difference of only $150 dollars if you go with the cheapest console and the cheapest computer.

2. I think this is a myth. I have never once had a problem with any game playing on my computer. Maybe it requires a special kind of stupid or something.

3. Tweaking this or that is similar to #2 but also to #1. Again, my $700 computer can handle it all. But let's compare apples to apples. I had a roommate at one time that thought Halo looked much better on the xbox than Jedi Outcast on the PC. So I reduced my resolution from 1280x1024 to 640x480 and suddenly he thought Outcast looked better. Turns out having a crappy blurry res on TV actually eliminates detail and thus makes it easier for the machine to run things. But it doesn't look nicer. Now with HD many games are still at lower resolutions than PCs have been for a while. Turn your PC down to those same resolutions and amazingly it can handle it.

4. This is rather a moot point. Exclusives on consoles mean if you want that game you get that console. But the PC has exclusives that just aren't coming over. I couldn't imagine trying to play Warcraft III on a console. FPSs and RTSs are not for consoles. Some FPSs have been ported over, but they still don't play as nicely as on a PC. Plus, consoles don't have all the simple/web/java/flash based games that are really the big market. Those are played more often than even WoW. Remember, MS Solitaire is a video game too.

5. I'm not much into online play and don't know much about it. So I will concede this one. However, there is nothing inherent about consoles that allow this. Just because it hasn't been done on PCs doesn't mean it can't be soon.

6. There hasn't been much in the way of backwards compatibility until Sony's PS2. Xbox BC is a mess, Nintendo is doing something for once with the Wii, and the PS3 is supposed to have some BC. PC BC is much better. You may have had some issues with an upgrade, but for some games, so I've heard, give issues going from PSX to PS2. There will be more issues going to PS3 and xbox BC is a load of crap.

7. So here you are saying that you are giving up on computers. I guess that is why #1 is such an issue. Yeah, if all you want to do is play games with no need for anything a computer can do then sure, #1 is big. But if you need a computer for any reason, #1 becomes less of an issue, and you'll still have to deal with the bad stuff on computers.

8. Sounds fairly subjective. I enjoy being at my computer. But if you want to sit at a couch you can hook up to your TV and still play games. Cables can be long or you can go wireless or if you prefer controllers those can be purchased as well. Plus, I believe I saw a USB cooler on thinkgeek once.

9. Logitech is your friend. They make controllers for PCs. Typically though if there are that many options then you are playing a game that you cannot use with a controller. And for any recent FPS I have been successful at knowing the key bindings without having to look them up. Still, if you find controllers more your thing, they can be had on PCs.

10. There are some pretty wild and cool input gadgets on PCs too. Some are really neat while others are pure crap. Not much different than consoles here. So Nintendo came out with something neat, which I am looking forward to, but the reason it's not viewed as some gimmick (by most) is because it is shipping with all Wiis. If every PC purchased from Dell came w

notice his example (on page two)

[idugcoal]

The author attempts sarcasm in pointing out "If your computer doesn't resemble THIS: (picture of an enormous beast of a computer)...then your games might resemble THIS: (screenshot of an old two-colored Atari game).

Did anyone else notice that? An ATARI (console) screenshot was used by the author to represent what an outdated gaming computer would display? Am i the only one seeing the irony in using a CONSOLE screenshot (rather than an old PC game screenshot) as an example of something unacceptable, while at the same time discussing why console gaming is superior?

Re:notice his example (on page two)

[geminidomino]

THIS: (screenshot of an old two-colored Atari game).

Just FYI, that game is "Outlaw."

Ok, I'm off to buy ben-gay and yell at kids to get off my lawn now...

The single biggest reason

[Demon-Xanth]

I have a family member that writes for a major gaming website, the single largest reason why he perfers console gaming:

The games just work.

You open a game, pop it in, and in a few minutes you're into the game (depends on how long the cut scenes are). There's no installation, configuration, tweaking. Nothing. It just works. Now, he plays ALOT of games, but even when he gets home to enjoy them, he still picks up a pad. The only games I've seen on his PC are the ones that came with Win2k. It's not that he CAN'T play a PC game, he just doesn't enjoy messing around with drivers and that sort of thing when he could be shooting zombies in the head instead.

As geeks we're addicted to tweaking stuff, but you can't forget the joy when you open up something, plug it in, and it just works.

Re:The single biggest reason

[spyrochaete]

Your arguments are the same as mine for why I prefer PC games. Sure, it's nice to pop in a CD and that's all there is to it. However, I much prefer taking the time to install the game once for 10 minutes and enjoy lightning fast load times for the next 10-100 hours that I'll be playing it.

You can drive to the laundromat every week or you can buy your own washer and dryer. Both take the same amount of time, but it takes 15 extra minutes to drive to and from the laundromat.

Re:The single biggest reason

[Demon-Xanth]

Your analogy doesn't work quite well. Because you don't have to spend an hour every time you got a new shirt :)

Compare a crate engine with a carburator vs. one with fuel injection. A gear head will go for a carburated engine because they can tweak with it all day long and make it higher performance. But it will require regular tune ups to keep it in tune. (with a PC, that would be system maintenance) The average car user however, wants the damned thing just to fire up every day like it did the day before so they can drive it.

Personally, I perfer sitting on my couch and relaxing when I play a game to being hunched over my keyboard like I am now.

After 5 years

[el_womble]

I've finally got a PC powerful enough to play modern PC games: a MacBook :) . First game I installed on it was Half-Life 2 as it was never, ever going to get ported to OS X and that has to be the most unpleastant installation and purchasing experiance I've ever had - but the game was great!

An hour or two into the game and I'm begining to wonder why I ever bought a console. 2 hours in and I'm begining to realize that its pretty much the same experiance as Halo 2, but with frame drops and installation problems.

My conclusion? I'm glad that PC gaming is open to me once more. The mouse might not be the greatest controller in every situation, but its certainly pretty neat at some things. I like being able to carry around a device thats capable of playing HL2 at silly high resolutions and since I've had it I've hardly used my DS, but I will still be first in line for a new Wii. It's apples and oranges.

It might feel like you can compare PC gaming and consoles directly, but they scratch different itches, in the same way as the PSP and DS are fundamentally differnet ways of approaching the same problem and cars are nothing like motorbikes.

Re:After 5 years

[Savage-Rabbit]

I've finally got a PC powerful enough to play modern PC games: a MacBook :) . First game I installed on it was Half-Life 2 as it was never, ever going to get ported to OS X and that has to be the most unpleastant installation and purchasing experiance I've ever had - but the game was great!

Just curious... did you boot into XP with BootCamp or use CrossOver Office? CodeWeavers claim to support Half Life 2 and I have been wondering how well it works but haven't gotten around to installing it yet.

Re:After 5 years

[el_womble]

Bootcamp. Part of my frustration with the process was that the 8GB partition that I created initial was too small by about 250MB (grrrr) once the patches etc had been installed. 10GB to fit XP and Half-life is a workable minimum - but I kinda wish I'd gone for 15.

Other than that it went pretty smoothy, if not incredibly slowly.

I've had bad experiances with CrossOver Office in the past. If you can get it to work as well as BootCamp I'd be very interested as all the rebooting is a little tedious.

Re:After 5 years

[Savage-Rabbit]

I've had bad experiances with CrossOver Office in the past. If you can get it to work as well as BootCamp I'd be very interested as all the rebooting is a little tedious.

I have been doing a little googling and apparently Half Life 2 works quite well under CrossOver Mac apart from a few teething troubles, i.e. expect it to core once in a while (quite a long while judging from experiences with the latest CrossOver Mac builds) and the graphics have to be toned down a little but that is to be expected from in a Beta product. Anyway, I bought a CrossOver Mac pre-order license and will be trying this out tonight. I have zero patience for BootCamp and since I'm no game junky I don't mind dropping some eyecandy and performance if I get to skip the #@"$=%$(/ rebooting.

Silly article

[jimstapleton]

(1) I agree to.
(2) and (3) - never had a problem with them, even on computers "too old" to play a game, typically, I've found games will play on machines with about 1/2 the minimum requirements if you turn them down. As for tweaking, setting a couple settings isn't that challanging to get most games working, hardly qualifies as tweaking...
(4) Only relevant if you find them to be "killer". If they don't draw you, then no big deal. Oh, and there are PC exclusives too, so this really has no weight.
(5) Don't sony online games have this kind of thing? OK, I'll grant it as a selling point though, if you get the XBox, which I probably wont.
(6) I wasn't gonna say it, but this guy is PC inept. I got that from his descriptions of some of his PC handlings. I've never had much of a challange running older games, if WinXP doesn't run them, get a DOS emulator or use a win9x boot floppy.
(7) Funny, I don't have those problems on my Windows or BSD PCs either... Oh and some people would say "No porn" is a detriment.
(8) Call me back when you get out of the 90s, that argument has no weight. I've gamed with plenty of people in the same room, and had a good social experience. My $100GFX card can kick your consoles butt. Deal with it. I can even hook my comp up to a TV if I want to downgrade my graphics to compete!
(9) Because they don't make controlers for the PC, The USB thing I have hooked up to my case with the two analog sticks, the "+" direction button, 4 thumb buttons, two middle buttons, and four index-trigger buttons (resembling a PS2 controller) must be something else. /sarcasm off. Seriously, there are more controler options for the desktop computers, and to be honest, many of the are more functional.
(10) So it takes another two to six months to get some freaky controller design on the PC. Big freakin deal.

He had some points, but his anti-pc rants were mostly uninformed. No thanks.

Re:Silly article

[jimstapleton]

errr... wait.

No, with the cost of the PS3 and XBox360, it's actually cheaper to turn a decent wordprocessing/web computer into a gaming computer, including joystick costs, than to get a console. So even #1 isn't really true.

Now many games are on one console + pc, which means if you go the console route, you might have to get multiple consoles to play the games you want, whereas PC might handle all of the games for you...

I guess I don't completely agree with (1) either.

Anyway, what it comes down to, is neither is really better than the other. Each has advantages and disadvantages for whatever you want. Me, I have my PC for a lot of gaming, and my PS2 for a few good RPGs that aren't released on PC. That's all I need.

Re:Silly article

[ElleyKitten]

Now many games are on one console + pc, which means if you go the console route, you might have to get multiple consoles to play the games you want, whereas PC might handle all of the games for you...

There's a lot of games that are only for one or two consoles, so depending on what you like, you might have to get a PC and a console or two for all the games you want, which you did for those PS2 RPGs. It's all subjective. Maybe I love Mario and think FPSs are dumb. Then I can get a GameCube and rant that PCs are dumb. Doesn't make consoles better than PC, so the argument that you might have to get multiple consoles is kinda silly.

I do agree the prices of the 360 and especially the PS3 are getting rather high, though I haven't priced out a gaming PC lately, so I don't know how expensive it would be to take that route instead.

Re:Silly article

[geminidomino]

...you might have to get a PC and a console or two for all the games you want, which you did for those PS2 RPGs.

That's my biggest curiosity about the nextgen systems. Everyone's talking about what the big dev houses like EA and Squeenix are doing, but I haven't heard a peep from the smaller niche-RPG companies (NIS, Atlus, etc...) about what they're doing.

Oh Boy, An Opinion Piece!

[Lightwarrior]

This is not news. It's a manufactured story from GWN with 10 "facts" that demonstrate specious reasoning at best.

Let's take a look at them.

1 - "It's cheaper!". Depending on what you're playing and how you look at it. A casual gamer can purchase an entire system and be playing Bejeweled or whatever for the price of a Xbox 360 alone. Is a high-end PC and nice monitor more expensive than a 360, good HDTV, and surround-sound system? *Maybe*. Toss in that every game you buy for the 360 is $10 more than the PC counterpart, and... not sounding so cheap now, is it?

2 - "Every game is guaranteed to work". What the author really means here (and as he states in his justification) is that you can return opened console games, but not open PC games. Which is true. Is this a benefit to console gaming? A better #2 here would have been "Wide variety of rentals available", which is a true strength of console gaming.

3 - "You don't need to tweak..." ...so what? PC gamers don't spend hours per day doing this. Yes, you might have to download new drivers or perform system maintenance every once and a while. You also can't browse the web, write code, edit photos, make movies, or do anything but play games on a console. /shrug.

4 - "Lots of console exclusives..." True, the PC doesn't have as many exclusives as it used to, but most games that aren't exclusive to one console are released for every platform known to man. But if you only purchase one console, you're back in the same place - there will be exclusives for the other *SIX* systems (Xbox, 360, PS2, GCN, DS, PSP, and PC) you can't play.

5 - "Xbox Live." That's not a strength of console gaming, that's a strength of *Xbox* gaming. The GameCube doesn't have anything approaching that, and Sony's PS2 service is directly game-to-game. The PC still offers superior online multiplayer gaming, simply in that there's a much, much wider audience - World of Warcraft alone boasts 7 million subscribers.

6 - "Backwards compatibility." If we needed any further proof that the author is grasping at straws, here we are. The GameCube is not compatible with any N64 game. The list of Xbox games that can be played on the 360 is relatively small, and many extremely popular games are still not compatible. But sure, you can play PSOne games on your PS2. However, anyone who can't figure out how to play classic DOS and Windows 95/98 games on Windows XP needs to learn how to use Google.

7 - "Virus, adware, and spyware free." See #3. All you can do is play games. That's not a strength, that's not a weakness, that just is. PC owners who take care of their PCs don't have to worry about this either.

8 - "Games look better in high-def... from the couch." Purely subjective. From a quantitative point of view, PC monitors are able to display more pixels on the screen in higher resolutions (and PCs can have more powerful hardware), so PCs are capable of producing higher quality images.

9 - "Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse." Purely subjective. I find having 104 keyboard keys + 3 mouse buttons and a scroll wheel to be about 10x more useful than a controller. Additionally, I find controlling a FPS with a joypad to be imprecise and slow. Doesn't mean everyone feels this way; but it certainly doesn't warrant a spot on "Gaming Platform of Choice: Consoles".

10 - "Controller innovation." Yup, the Wii looks neat to control. The PC doesn't have anything like that. But considering that the majority of the author's reasoning is focused on Microsoft consoles (Xbox and 360), I can't help but point out that it's not so much a single console that's being championed here, but all of them. Well, the cost of every console plus a high-def display device, and all the doodads will *certainly* outprice the cost of a high-end computer.

Now don't get me wrong. I own a DS, GBA, GCN, PS2, Xbox, and three mid- to high-end PCs. I go where the games are. I just hate seeing nonsense like "I R C0NS0L3 F4NB01 R04R" masquerading as a thoughtful and informative piece. There are *many* good reasons to choose console gaming, but the author of this article failed to articulate more than one or two.

Re:Oh Boy, An Opinion Piece!

[tepples]

Well, the cost of every console plus a high-def display device, and all the doodads will *certainly* outprice the cost of a high-end computer.

But not four computers. How many GameCube consoles do you need to play a four-player game of Smash Bros.? By comparison, how many PCs do you need to play a typical four-player PC game?

Re:Oh Boy, An Opinion Piece!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Your reply doesn't do anything to address the quoted point. You've attacked a perfectly valid and well reasoned statement on what barely registers as a tangent. Way to go, you mental midget.

Oh.. wait... Maybe he's right about cost...

[chaboud]

Except I already have a computer with a pretty hoppin' graphics card for graphics work.

If I were looking at buying a computer for just gaming , yeah, I'd probably go with a console first, but what's the problem with having both?

What job-having tech-nerds don't have several piles of old computers and old consoles taking up space in the basement or spare bedroom?

Just about every working geek I know can go "Okay, so I've had: A Colecovision, a 2600, Master System, Genesis, SNES, Game gear, Playstation, N64, Dreamcast, PS2" (my list) and then turn around and say "And, for computers, I've had a C64, 286, A500, 386, A1200, DX4/75 (remember those?), P75, p133, pII 266, NeXTStation Turbo, p3-450, etc..." (my computer list goes crazy after that). I've played games on every one of the systems I've owned except for my iMac and Powerbook. Anyone who sticks to only one platform is limiting himself.

It's like someone who insists on only eating boiled food.

Let's address these...

[thebdj]

1. It's cheaper.
This is hard to argue with, but as the saying goes, "You get what you pay for." Despite what they are trying to turn consoles into, you still can do more things besides gaming with a PC. (And they are not all boring things like typing papers and doing spreadsheets.)

2. Every game is guaranteed to work.
Um, not quite true. I have known a few games because of defects that would not work right out. Granted these were manufacturing errors and nothing else. Also, if you are truly PC gaming, the odds of running into a game that will not work are low. You will likely have a system meant to run the games you play. Also, the return statement is a bit off. Some places will take back open items and those that don't often won't take back your open console game either, so this point is sort of moot.

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
How many games have I had to overly tweak or specialize....maybe two. The settings allow more PCs to play games, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out. Most games implement the Bad, Better, Best system of setting for the real dim witted ones. And as for the articles, you get what is advertised with a console game, this is not true. I simply point to the PS2 debacle. You know, when they were not clear pre-launch about shots being in-game.

4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from.
This is becoming a bit rarer. If those are the games you want, fine. If they are not, this point is, well, pointless.

5. Xbox Live.
Well, let's see. Free online play (except for a few games). The point about chatting while watching a movie, I point you to Steam (so every Valve game, which happen to have the highest online numbers short the MMOs). Oh, and don't forget the extremely high number of people paying to play MMOs. There is a business making money hand-over-fist.

6. Backwards compatibility.
You are joking right? The Xbox 360 has half-assed backwards compatibility. We shall see what the PS3 brings. The Dreamcast, as much as I loved it, never had backwards compat to the Saturn. Then there is that time we switched Nintendo consoles, how many of those were backwards compat, unless they sold add-ons. Of course, nothing was backwards compat with the Cube, cause well we went from Cart to CD. These examples sort of shoot the Win98SE to XP argument, which can be resolved with various tools and emulators, which are legal. So there goes that idea.

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free.
This is a point? Users only have themselves to blame for viruses, adware or spyware. With a few exceptions, this shit has to be installed by the user in the end. Most PC gamers are savvy enough to know how to avoid this stuff. And don't think that with online connectivity, people will not find a way to add viruses to the mix with consoles. (Or possibly spyware or adware for that matter.)

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
So can a PC. Remember, that cards are coming out (and many sub-$400) that are being designed for HDCP output, which means they should work with TVs fairly well, and will be able to play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (or both) once PC drives are available. Your other next gen consoles currently will have Blu-Ray (PS3), HD-DVD (360 w/ add-on), and neither (the Wii). So tell me who wins this one. The guy who can have both formats.

9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse.
HAHA. You can buy controllers for a PC. Controllers still have some use in the PC game world, but you play an FPS between a gamer with controllers and one with Keyboard/Mouse, and you will see the controller boy get slaughtered. It is this separation that keeps most developers from allowing the console and PC versions to be played together.

10. Controller innovation.
Again, you are kidding right. You think they h

Re:Let's address these...

[biglig2]

I'm sure this is a dumb-ass question, but why don't manufacturers release a WASD+mouse controller for consoles? I mean, Guitar Hero and DDR and so on all come with their own controllers, so the idea is already there.

I can understand the stupid reasons why consoles don't just come with keyboard and mouse support and two extra USB sockets in the back (so they can sell you expensive "internet" options, so that the keyboard people don't thrash the controller people on XBox live, so they only have to code for one input device, etc. etc.)

But if you could play HalfLife 2 on an XBOX360 with a mouse and keyboard I'd probably buy one tomorrow, because I don't really want to spend £1000 replacing my home machine so it can play modern games, but I do want to play HL2 and CS-S and GTA-SA. (actually, aren't those all XBox titles?)

Re:Let's address these...

[Damek]

Yay, you took the bait and wasted another 10 minutes of your life! Hooray for you, you're the winner!

Re:Let's address these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Users only have themselves to blame for viruses, adware or spyware.

And some of us are a more than a little sick of this blame the victim bullshit stance. Fuck you, geek.

Re:Let's address these...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your rebuttal of 4. Japanese developers (who make a huge amount of games - Nintendo alone is the second biggest games publisher in the world) still hardly ever release PC versions. Lots of good western games also never get PC versions, even FPS games that are well suited to the platform e.g. Black. Console exclusive aren't, and have never been, rare, and this isn't going to change unless the PC gets popular in Japan as a gaming and development platform.
This is a bit annoying to me, since I buy the PC version when given the option and only have consoles to fill in the gaps.

Re:Let's address these...

[ElleyKitten]

Some places will take back open items and those that don't often won't take back your open console game either, so this point is sort of moot.

I used to work at a game store, and we wouldn't take back open PC games, when someone took back a console game we tested it in a display console and if it didn't work we would exchange it. It's a lot more common for stores to take back open console games, simply because they can verify that it really doesn't work.

I agree with your other points, though I prefer console gaming. Why? Because the games I like are on console, I prefer gaming from the couch, and my PC runs Linux. If I had a high-end Windows PC and I liked FPSs, then I would be a PC gamer. These PC/console flamefests are all stupid. Buy the games you like, and the systems that play them, and who cares if someone likes something else?

Re:Let's address these...

[Have Blue]

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good. How many games have I had to overly tweak or specialize....maybe two. The settings allow more PCs to play games, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out. Most games implement the Bad, Better, Best system of setting for the real dim witted ones. And as for the articles, you get what is advertised with a console game, this is not true. I simply point to the PS2 debacle. You know, when they were not clear pre-launch about shots being in-game.

You kind of defeated your own argument there- PC games go the extra mile to make sure that more PCs can run the game by reducing quality, but on a console 100% of the machines run the game at maximum quality at all times. And that's not even getting into the tweaking necessary to get around problems with your setup.

And if you're going to complain about bullshit screenshots, talk to owners of not-cutting-edge video cards who are never going to get the graphics quality used to promote PC games either.

Re:Let's address these...

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

>>> 3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good. One decent example would be Oblivion - can be tweaked to increase the graphics details to match your available graphics power.

Re:Let's address these...

[kklein]

Ummm... Except 100% on a console is only 100% on a PC for 6 months after the console first ships. The PC's 100% keeps moving. Granted, that's an added expense (the main one) of PC gaming, but until HDTV came out, it really didn't matter what graphics card your console had under the hood, you were going to be looking at crappy-ass TV resolution.

With the advent of HDTV, a lot of the arguments about resolution have been laid to rest... But it has actually re-opened the one about cost. I don't have an HDTV, and don't plan on buying one until my current, very nice, regular widescreen TV dies. And that's not going to be for a long time. I like my TV, and it was only $400 5 years ago (slightly used). I'm not too stoked about dropping $1k+ for a similar-sized HDTV, and replacing all my other stuff to take advantage of the HD-ness. We're talking a couple grand, and that's more than I really want to put into my living room. And I'm far from alone.

My PC, however, I use all day for work, keeping in touch with friends/family, reading, watching news... And the whole "rig" (excuse the fanboy term) cost me around $1k. Granted, I like to put a new $200 video card in it every year or so, but as I get older and become more of a casual gamer, I find that I'm a lot less worried about getting the best image in the world, because it's already so damned great.

All told, the quality argument is silly for technical reasons, and the technical reasons have now killled the cost argument as well! Even staying with the curve on the PC, the two likely balance out on cost, and the PC still edges out the console on quality.

All that being said, I'm hoping my wife gets me an Xbox360 for my birthday... There are some games on it I'd really like to play!

Re:Let's address these...

[Sigma 7]

You kind of defeated your own argument there- PC games go the extra mile to make sure that more PCs can run the game by reducing quality, but on a console 100% of the machines run the game at maximum quality at all times.

And this is exactly what can cause problems with Consoles. When too many objects appear on the screen at once, the game slows down and has to process one frame-worth of gameplay over two display frames.

Games are affected by this effect to varying degrees - Mega Man for the NES is one of them, as the developerd decided to just grit their teeth with the lag. Other games can avoid the lag by reducing the number of objects that can appear at once on the screen, but it is still a side effect of that lag.

Yes, PC games are affected by this as well. Quake was one of them, where if you had a mod that took too many assembler instructions to complete a task, the game ends and kicks you to the console (along with a stack trace.)

Re:Let's address these...

[Fallingcow]

I'm sure this is a dumb-ass question, but why don't manufacturers release a WASD+mouse controller for consoles? I mean, Guitar Hero and DDR and so on all come with their own controllers, so the idea is already there.

They probably can't figure out how to make such a controller.

You can't hold it like a normal controller, because you've got (at least) 3 fingers on the movement buttons and just your pinkie and thumb free--but then again, they're not even truly free, because part of the great advantage to this controller layout is that I can hit SHIFT and CTRL with my pinkie without taking my movement fingers off their keys, plus my thumb is right there on the space bar. Add to that the convenience of having the F, Q, E, R, and 1-4 keys (arguably a bunch more, especially if you're used to the layout) easily usable with minimal impedence to movement control... and you're well on your way to making the whole left half of a keyboard already. And you've still got to set it on something, just like a full-sized keyboard.

But if you could play HalfLife 2 on an XBOX360 with a mouse and keyboard I'd probably buy one tomorrow, because I don't really want to spend £1000 replacing my home machine so it can play modern games, but I do want to play HL2 and CS-S and GTA-SA. (actually, aren't those all XBox titles?)

Unless computer parts are way more expensive on your side of the pond than they are here, you could build a PC from scratch that can play HL2 and the GTA series at high resolutions and upper-mid-range detail settings (at least) for maybe half that. Late last year I spent about $450 to get everything for a new PC except for the drives (both hard disk and optical), which I salvaged from an older PC. It can even play Oblivion on settings that are at least not off-putting, and can certainly handle the last generation of FPS titles. Google tells me that 1000GBP is about $1800. No need to spend anywhere near that much money.

Re:Let's address these...

[biglig2]

My local supermarket sells USB numeric keypads for people with laptops, the device I imagine would be almost entirely identical. So manufacturing would be easy. Yes, it has to sit on a table. There's a mouse in there too, so a table is definitely a "must have".

£1000 is an exageration, but parts are indeed more expensive over here.

I think I'll have to just bite the bullet. ;-(

Re:Console w/o cartridge = computer (think load ti

[grumbel]

To me, it was all about the load time.

Gamecube still has virtually no load times and especially when compared with PC the load times on consoles are still often a lot less. Exceptions are of course PC games which got ported to consoles, these often have noticable loading times, but still, compared to the time I have to waste with installation, copy-protection schemes, reboots, crashes and stuff on a PC consoles still come out as the winner in terms of 'time till the game is ready for play'.

not really a gamer

[Danzigism]

coming from someone who USED to be a hardcore PC gamer back in Apogee's prime, and a hardcore NES and Sega Genesis fan, I can honestly say that after the Genesis, I haven't bought one video game console.. I've played a fair share, and yes they're all pretty much fun, but its never prompted me to buy one.. and nowadays, I certainly steer clear of most consoles especially when they are over $400.. to me its just ridiculous to invest that kinda money in to a game console when you could buy a sweet ass computer that will ALWAYS do much much more, bar-none..

HOWEVER....... due to recent events in gaming history, like the fucking Nintendo Wii, they're finally going to get me back as a console consumer.. simply because its not just another bullshit system.. the thing was designed specifically to entertain.. its not going to be designed to replace your PC.. its there for entertainment.. and its not going to cost you a fortune.. not to mention, the interaction is going to be 40 bajillion times better than a Xbox 360 and a PS3.. there's simply much more you can do with those controllers.. regardless of what your defense for the Xbox 360 and PS3, they still have regular ass controllers.. and compared to the Wii, its just plain boring.. Nintendo has certainly striked my interest, and has gotten be very excited about this new system.. this is all coming from the perspective of someone who does not play games on a regular basis, and doesn't care much for consoles to begin with.. but the damn Wii is just going to flat-out kick everyone's ass..

'Nuff said

[Lord_Frederick]

Anyone that says "'Nuff said" in a review shouldn't be taken seriously.

mostly accurate, but a few arent

[brunascle]

most of the list is pretty accurate, but i have some problems with a few:

8. Games look better

wrong. i dont think we need to debate this one.

9. Controllers are more comfortable

generally yes, but for certain games theres no (afaik) decent want to play them on a console, and most of the good console controllers have a PC equivalent (but there's usually a delay between when a console with a new controller is released and when an equivalent comes out on pc).

4. Lots of console exclusives

granted, but there's also quite a bit of PC exclusives. and many of the genre-defining games were exlusive to/first on the PC.

I'm Waiting...

[RexRhino]

... for the article that definitly explains why oranges are better than apples.

Re:I'm Waiting...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably because oranges are consistent. You know you have green apples, yellow apples, red apples. But oranges? they are orange! And taste better!

Re:I'm Waiting...

[acherusia]

Why oranges are better than apples

1. You can sit on the couch and relax while peeling the orange. You can even make it a game! See how many pieces of orange peel you can throw at the cat before he moves. (Answer: You'll run out of orange peel first.)
2. Oranges taste better.
3. Oranges have that lovely citrus peel on the outside, which you can peel off with your zester to make a lovely garnish, or use in a recipe for an intensely orange taste.
4. Apples are the source of the American apple pie, which is seen everywhere, and is thus boring and only for plebes.
5. Apple seeds are poisonous! This means that you shouldn't eat apples because they're dangerous. Really.
6. I have an orange tree in my backyard, thus they're cheaper. Free, even.
7. Because.
8. I said so.
9. Why are you eating that apple?! I said they aren't as good.
10. P.S. Look at my ads and earn me revenue. Adblock people, go away.

This article was really informative, almost genius

[zaqattack911]

For gods sake... it reads like one of those "10 reasons why I love my Macintosh" articles. Excuse me while I poop on this article. Aaaaaaahh... much better.

You guys are forgetting the best part of a PC

[shaze]

T3h pwnage! Well, here's something you internet-less console junkies don't got; uber micro skillz! That, and the ability to STEAL every stupid console game, and EMULATE it's shitty graphicy goodness. As a PC user, I can download any game, get the specs to mod any console, and actually do something with my money aside from buying crappy (Insert crappy console name) games. That being said, yes, owning a good PC is much, much, more expensive than any console. (Even more than the dreaded PS3 selling price) But the benefits are much, much greater. Everyone who Blogs should be shot.

Re:You guys are forgetting the best part of a PC

[jimstapleton]

Gaming PCs aren't necessarily more expensive than consoles, if you are going to having a web/wordprocessing computer.

Web Computer -w- monitor: $500-$600
Gaming Computer -w- monitor: $1000-$1500
Console without monitor: $200-$800

It is possible to get a gaming computer for less than that console + the web computer.

Re:You guys are forgetting the best part of a PC

[geminidomino]

Err... Internet gaming has been in the console realm since last generation. Hell, even the handhelds have it now.

That's right, even us DS owners can deal with stupid snaking whores in Mario Kart.

Online play is overrated.

#4

[Dutchmaan]

"4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison. Whether you're hot for Mario, Kratos, or Ryu Hayabusa, you'll find their newest releases on consoles. Sure, the PC has some exclusive titles, but sooner or later they'll find their way onto your living room television since that's where the money is at."

Yeah.. lot's of console exlusives.. for DIFFERENT COLSOLES... How about that newest Metal Gear Solid for your X-Box or Wii, or Perhaps you're wanting to play Halo3 on your shiny new PS3. What are you going to do, go out and buy 3 different systems to play all the games you want? I've seen people do it. Point being, consoles have their downside too.

How can it be cheaper?

[khendron]

How can it be cheaper to buy a console when I already have a PC? I might not have the latest hot graphics card, but most games don't need them.

Also, I don't have a TV.

I am sure there are lots of advantages for owning a console, but process of elimination leads me to the PC.

Re:How can it be cheaper?

[KajiCo]

"How can it be cheaper to buy a console when I already have a PC? I might not have the latest hot graphics card, but most games don't need them."

Because you pay an initial investment only, and the hardware on average will have a lifespan of 5 years (unless people jack your machine, or you break it). Where as in order to play the latest games on a PC, you can't have a machine that's older than a year at most. Meaning you have to constantly upgrade hardware just to play a game.

If you can afford to be a PC gamer that's fine, but leave us poor folk alone, not everyone can afford to buy new video cards, motherboards, processors and ram everytime a new pretty game for the PC comes out. Not to mention you still need a really good monitor that works with the ultra high resolutions.

Re:How can it be cheaper?

[spyrochaete]

Thanks for finally bringing up the television issue. New consoles demand (but don't require) large screen HD televisions, many of which have no speakers. That primary prerequisite alone is more expensive than a decent gaming PC. Then there's issues like a stereo reciever, speakers, a bracket or wooden stand for everything, extra cables (for the console and for the TV), not to mention an entire room of your house to dedicate to all this stuff.

Re:How can it be cheaper?

[Endo13]

This total misconception is also what essentially his entire article is based on, and as a result really holds no water. He starts right off by saying "you have to upgrade everything every year." Sorry, but nope. ALL the parts in my system(except the extra hard drives I bought to hold all the OTHER stuff my PC is useful for) are 2+ years old (most are 3+). There's not a single game released to date that my system can't play. No, I can't play them all on max settings, but then with most games the minimum settings are better than similar games on consoles. Beyond that, every one of his 10 points is either outright false or at least flawed, but since other people have already pointed out that I won't bother. One thing I'll add though is that computer gamers don't use keyboard + mouse because they have to - it's because they want to. Gamepad choices for PCs abound, and most games will even detect which pad you have and have an intuitive default button setup. One of the saddest things about his whole article is how he missed one of the biggest reasons to own a console: split-screen multiplayer. For all the good multiplayer games and fun times PC games offer, there's nothing like sitting down to some hot 4-player action on a console (GoldenEye anyone?). Personally I play and enjoy both PC games and consoles, though more PC games of late.

Re:How can it be cheaper?

[KajiCo]

2 to 3 years is not affordable to me. Especially when it's not 1 thing you're upgrading but a plethora of things. My Xbox is all the way back from 2001, and it runs Halo 2, and Half Life 2 well enough for me to play online and in multiplayer mode, while my dual 1ghz PC with 1.5gb of ram, and the latest ATI video card I could buy at the time that cost me well over $1200 couldn't even run anything new that was coming out 6 months down the line, not to mention that my CRT 17" cost me another $200 and I couldn't even crank anything higher than 1120 X 768. Sorry, but my money goes to consoles, they just last longer. I'm glad you can afford to change machines ever 2 to 3 years to support your gaming habits, I can't afford to do that, especially when it could be invested in more important things.

Re:How can it be cheaper?

[Unicorn Giggles]

"Where as in order to play the latest games on a PC, you can't have a machine that's older than a year at most."

Simply not true, A computer has a much longer term of usability for gaming than a year, if you are not entirely obsessed with running absolute top settings you can get five years easy, and consoles really only have an expected lifespan of about 3 years. And beyond all that, a gaming rig does require a larger initial investment, but the repeat costs are less than the cost of buying a console (usually) so when you upgrade every three years to the newest console, and pc gamers upgrade to a newer video card (thats right, newer, doesnt have to be the slickest top 'o the line card) the pc gamers come out on top.

Re:How can it be cheaper?

[Endo13]

It doesn't have to be that expensive to build and maintain a PC. I've never spent $1200 on a PC. I spend $500 and upgrade piece by piece as needed. I always wait to buy upgrades until the stuff I'm buying is 'outdated' (but still plenty powerful enough to play games). So essentially for a hardware costs that's roughly 2-3x the cost of console hardware you get a machine that not only lets you play games, but also lets you browse the internet, send email, write letters, make spreadsheets or databases, file your taxes, download music and movies, buy pretty much anything you want online, etc. etc. etc. And the interesting thing is, pretty much the only thing you have to upgrade for gaming beyond what you'd want for general-purpose use is the graphics card. So to put it another way, basically what I spend on my PC to keep it in shape for gaming is buying a graphics card for $150 or so about every 2-3 years (less if you don't buy one with all the extra features I get with my All-In-Wonder). Since I need and use my machine for a plethora of other things every day (and no, a 1GHz machine is NOT fast enough for me for all those other things) I find PC gaming far less expensive than console gaming. I'm buying the hardware anyway, I may as well buy a couple games to play on it.

Go figure.

[antialias02]

I've never understood why there was such a fuss between "console gamers" and "PC gamers." I play both with such relative frequency that I'd never be able to give one up. I play MMOs, RTS, GAPGs, and some FPS's on my PC, and I play RPGs, FPSs, platforms, and pretty much anything Konami has ever made on my consoles. There's room for all. I'm still scratching my head as to why it has to be one or the other (as if we didn't have enough drama with the console wars).

Understatement of the day

[ivan256]

Some genres just don't end up on consoles.. or don't anymore because they don't show off the uber-1337 graphics technology, or generate recurring revenue streams or whatever rot that the console makers want to cram down your throat on the box that they control yet have tricked you to part with your money for...

PCs are open platforms. Games don't need to be sanctioned by the system manufacturer in order to run on them. Game, set, and match.

The XBox (the first one) allows for patches.

[EComni]

So did the PS2 with the FFXI HDD. And this was last generation. Nevermind the 360 and PS3, where patches are practically mandated, with the rushed releases and hardware faults and such (yeah, the PS3 isn't out yet, but I can't imagine it not having lots of problems)...

PC gaming has some advantages to console gaming, but patches is NOT one of them anymore.

In fact, it's kinda debatable as to whether patching is an advantage at all. Patches are perfect for balancing online games, and I welcome them. However, too often I see games that are obviously rushed out to release, and the company releases patch after patch just to get the game playable (see: Battlefield 2). The problems are 1) the game shouldn't have been that damned broken to begin with, and 2) haphazards patches can screw things up, either relating to gameplay or general system stability.

At first, I was happy that the XBox would allow for patches/expansions to be downloaded, but now I'm fearful that the next-gen of consoles is gonna suffer from the same problems as PC gaming, with devs rushing their game to make release, then subsequently releasing many patches just to fix the damned thing.

The title should be.. ..

[Arwing]

Why consoles are better for your everyday average people who can't setup their own VCR/DVR. Gaming on PC is soooo much easier today comparing to just a few years ago. With DirectX and other software standard, am I the only one who remembers how to modify config.exe and adjust EMM386 to get more memory for the game?

Re:The title should be.. ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably are, since the file was called "config.sys"

Re:The title should be.. ..

[spyrochaete]

Don't forget to set files=30 and load mscdex in devicehigh!

uh, Bullshit?

[Inominate]

Seriously though whats wrong with this?

1. Cheaper
  Yea if you go per-console, not over time. Not when you compare replayability vs cost vs Free games. Even more so when you start to compare capability vs cost.

2. Every game is guarenteed to work
  This is the only true advantage to consoles. It's also only true because stupid users BREAK their PC's. Not a fault of the platform, it's a fault of the user. Consoles protect you from yourself.

3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
  i.e. You _CAN'T_ tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look BETTER.

4. Lots of console exclusives
  Lots of PC exclusives. While consoles lead in single player games, they're a few generations away from being able to compete as ONLINE gaming platforms, beyond the 10 year old FPS "matchmaking" style online play.

5. xbox live
    See previous comment

6. backwards compatibility
  Backwards compatiblity is broken only relatively rarely, and historicly has been made available again fairly soon. When dealing with consoles this becomes even more true. How many of us owned an NES or an SNES? How many of us can STILL play our games on those consoles? Vs., How many of us owned an NES or SNES and now have to play the games we owned on emulators, on a _PC_?

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free.
    "No porn. 'Nuff said."

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
    No they don't. Bigger screen does not mean looks better. A HD TV from a couch is an entirely ACCEPTABLE way to game, but it's by no means anywhere near a match for contemporary computer displays. Compare the cost of that HDTV with the cost of a good CRT, LCD, or Projector.

9. Controllers are more comfortable
    Console controllers are ideal for some games. Keyboard and mouse are INFINITELY better for any sort of FPS game. Cursor based games range from difficult to impossible to implement well on a console. At the same time, console style controllers are readily available for PCs for MUCH less than the cost of an extra console controller.

10. Controller innovation.
  Yea, nintendo has finally come up with a way to implement SOME cursor based games on a console. It's an innovation for consoles, not games in general.

Re:uh, Bullshit?

[gad_zuki!]

>It's also only true because stupid users BREAK their PC's.

Starforce and other anti-pirating nonsense break my PCs. The PC gaming publishers need to lay off invading my machine with their unstable invasive software.

Re:uh, Bullshit?

[lubricated]

>> they're a few generations away from being able to compete as ONLINE gaming platforms

aside from that it's easier to stop cheaters. That's one area consoles are light years ahead of computers.

Re:uh, Bullshit?

[Trifthen]

2. Every game is guarenteed to work
This is the only true advantage to consoles. It's also only true because stupid users BREAK their PC's. Not a fault of the platform, it's a fault of the user. Consoles protect you from yourself.

Coming from a console/pc agnostic, you're wrong here. Need I bring up Eidos? They have to release the buggiest shit on the face of the Earth on a fairly regular basis. If you remember back that far, the Final Fantasy VII release for the PC was notorious for its inexcusable level of bugs; it wouldn't even work out of the box without several patches many weeks after its release. Hell, even Diablo II has 10(!) patches. Sure, a bad user can hose their system, but game crashes are definitely a major PITA when PC gaming.

And as a PC gamer on occasion, I have to say registration is easily my biggest pet-peeve. Why do I have to get no-cd cracks for a game I paid for? I didn't install multiple gigs of files to keep a CD around. With games that require online activation per play (ala Steam), how the hell do I play on a damn road trip to kill some time? Seriously, game companies being a bunch of paranoid asshats has significantly reduced my enthusiasm for PC gaming.

Why not both

[joggle]

Why not just be happy with games from a year ago and buy 2nd/3rd release of the console of your choice and buy a relatively cheap PC that can easily play games from 1-2 years ago?

I also don't buy the social argument. It's much easier to bring laptops for a little network gaming with friends than consoles and a bunch of TVs/good laptops with TV inputs. A cheap laptop can still play some fun classics, like Starcraft.

Console games don't last

[saladami]

What about replay value or simply how long the game takes to beat? Many $50 console games can be completely beaten in 20 hours or less. Grand Theft Auto games being the major exception, this is where PC games have the edge. How many hours of WoW can you get for the same price? The DVD containing an xbox game is usually 90% video filler.

Re:Console games don't last

[iainl]

Many $50 console games can't be completed in 20 hours. All those dull-as-shite RPG things, for a start. Generally, in fact, I wouldn't say that PC games last any longer than console ones. Even in the case of WoW, I'd counter with Final Fantasy 11, but that might sound like I'd find more than 30 seconds of enjoyment in either.

Re:Console games don't last

[Turken]

"How many hours of WoW can you get for the same price?"

The better question here is how many hours are you allowed to play for the same price. I can buy a console game and play as much or as little as I want for as long as I own the game. However, for the price of that one game, I can only get the software for WoW and one additional month of play time.

Games that require subscriptions are the biggest reason that I don't play MMO's nor own an Xbox(360). In general, consoles give the best value because:

1) Most console games don't require constant re-investment of money (although this is unfortunately starting to change with the new systems).

2) If I'm not sure that I would like a console game, I can always go rent it first. Where can I rent PC games from? PC demos are always limited in either content or time allowed to play. With console game rentals, I can rent and beat several titles (whether good or bad) for the price of a single purchase on any system. Then if I decide that a game is worth having around for casual playing, I can buy it. Which goes back to point #1, most games I buy for the reason that they are fun to pull out every once in awhile and play with friends. With a console I don't have to worry about those games not working weeks/months later.

3) Console games are easier to resell. If I do buy a game and later decide I don't need it, reselling it or giving it to a sibling is no problem, and there are lots of places willing to buy (although most give such a small amount I prefer to just give away to friends and family). They don't have to worry about registration or licensing issues. If you have the disc in your posession, you can play the game whenever and however you want. PC games on average are not nearly as transferrable.

Yeah, I know that the Console vs. PC debate has been raging forever and will never go away, the the above are just a few of the reasons that I switched to the console camp years ago, and have never looked back.

Re:Console games don't last

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say PC games last much longer than console games, considering how most of the big games today are moddable or at least include level editors.

If you honestly can't find 10 ways either side is

[kinglink]

better you are not a gamer. Both side has very good points. The only problem with this article is Xbox Live is NOT a console win, it's a specific console feature.

Honestly now that consoles has patches. I game on the console a lot more, but at the same time the PC is my method of choice for modable games and games I want the mouse for. Then again HL2 is coming to the Xbox 360 with all the best First-party mods which is an awesome move.

Overall both are great experiences, for those on a budget grab a console, for those who want the very best the PC is better, for the rest of us we can use a hybrid.

Consoles vs PCs

[StormReaver]

I love PC gaming for the controllers. The keyboard + mouse controller combo is far and away my favorite controller system for most games. Until the Wii, no console controller ever even stood a chance of comparing positively. I bought the Game Cube and PS2, and played both in a limited fashion solely because of the controllers. I kept going back to PC games (even the limited selection available for my Linux system) mostly because the controllers were far better than the console.

Console gaming is great for most of the (old, rehashed) reasons given in the article, but all of that is overshadowed by the horrible, terrible, atrocious controllers on all of the consoles. The one argument that totally fell flat was the Xbox Live argument. That is probably the single most hollow argument I've ever seen in favor of a gaming system.

The Wii controller is the main reason I'm going to give Nintendo (and only Nintendo. No PS3, and certainly no Xbox) another try. If the Wii doesn't live up to expectations, this will be the last console I buy.

And the #1 reason is...

[Noexit]

I already sit in front of a computer at this place called an "office" for 8,9,10 hours a day. I don't really want to go home and do the same thing for my leisure time. Yeah, I'll pop on and check my email and whatever in the evening, but then I'm done. I want to sit on the couch, put my feet up, and forget about PC's for a little while.

Re:And the #1 reason is...

[ylikone]

I work in front of a computer all day... but I also relax and play on my computer after work. I basically live my life sitting in front of an LCD screen. I don't do work on the computer after work time is over... that is the difference. I even cancelled cable TV because I realized I never sit on the couch watching TV anymore.

A few slight quibbles

[javakah]

1. It's cheaper.- While it may be cheaper (although from the sounds of it the PS3 may only be slightly so), it is also not upgradable. Graphics starting to look a bit old? Well tough luck on a console until a new console comes out and you have to shell out money for an entirely new system, even if the processor, etc. works well. On a PC (at least a desktop), you can just replace the graphics card. 2. Every game is guaranteed to work Good point, although if your computer isn't more that 3-4 years old, this isn't likely to be a problem. By this amount of time, you would still likely have to buy a new console to play the most recent games. 3. You needn't tweak This may be true, but it's not an entirely good thing. If you have less money to spend on your PC, you may not have the best parts, but through a bit of tweaking you can still play games. If you do have a ton of money, you can get the best parts and tweak a bit so you can play those games at nicer settings, and you can also upgrade parts as desired. 4. Lots of console exclusives Granted, and this is probably the most valid point. Although I will say that there are some PC exclusives that people tend to use (Word, Excel, etc). People with consoles still tend to have to buy PC's anyway for these. If you are a really hardcore gamer, the availablity of exclusive games available on consoles will make the difference. 5. Xbox Live. Aside from Battlefield 2, I can't think of any online game that's currently better on PC. How about PC only? Might I introduce you to a game called World of Warcraft? 7 million people reportedly enjoy it. While consoles may be better for FPS's, I would say that PC's with mouse and keyboard are better for social interaction in such games, and also lend themselves to be more easily updated with fresh content (i.e. WoW patches/expansions that can update the game fairly extensively). 6. Backwards compatibility And how are people enjoying playing their Super Nintendo cartridges on their game cubes? Yes, perhaps Sony may be doing a better job of this, but others aren't. In addition you're paying for it. 7. Virus, adware, and spyware free Chances are (especially given that this person wrote an article) that the author uses some sort of Word Processor, which means they are using a PC, which means that they already have to deal with these things. My suggestion to the author? Just be careful and stop visiting his midget porn websites. People tend to get into trouble most frequently when they voluntarily go to really questionable websites. 8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch. The author even admits that PC's can do higher resolution graphics and modern TV's have digital inputs that will let you watch stuff from your computer on your TV (heck, there are a number of TV/Monitors out on the market these days). There are tons of wireless devices for PC's out on the market. You can play/work on your TV on your couch using your PC if you so choose. You can then switch back to your desk if you so choose and use your higher resolution monitor. The choice is yours with a PC. Not so with a console. 9. Controllers are more comfortable So buy a comfortable, wireless controller for your PC. There's a ton of variations out there for you to choose from. 10. Controller innovation (Citing the Wii) But wait a second, wasn't the author just talking about the backwards compatibility of the Sony Playstation? Can I play my old Super Nintendo games on it? Are you saying you want me to buy both a PS3 and a Wii (heck, there goes the price advantage of the consoles). Most of the reasons given for using a console are just BS. If you are a hardcore gamer and need those exclusive games, then that's the reason to go for a console. Additionally if you are away from home and looking for a bit of gaming, then the handheld consoles are going to be hard to beat.

Re:A few slight quibbles

[CronoCloud]

Paragraph breaks please

I've run a word processor on a PS2 and odds are I'll do it on the PS3 too.

console games ruled!

[Ankh]

I remember playing "adventure" on the console of a PDP-11 in the early 1980s!

You are in a forest, the teletype printed, and I had to enter "N" for "go North"!

Later, computer consoles were sometimes screens, and you could go into the machine room and play rogue or "larn" or "trek" or whatever, with the disk drives making noises and sometimes wobbling like washing machines with an unblanced spin, and the tape drives sometimes clicking and whirring. You could play until your feet got cold from the air conditioning!

Yay for console games!

Porn?

[nead]

7. ... No porn, ... 'Nuff said.

Yup, no porn over here, none under here, I can't find any porn over here either.

A few slight quibbles

[javakah]

1. It's cheaper.
While it may be cheaper (although from the sounds of it the PS3 may only be slightly so), it is also not upgradable. Graphics starting to look a bit old? Well tough luck on a console until a new console comes out and you have to shell out money for an entirely new system, even if the processor, etc. works well. On a PC (at least a desktop), you can just replace the graphics card.

2. Every game is guaranteed to work
Good point, although if your computer isn't more that 3-4 years old, this isn't likely to be a problem. By this amount of time, you would still likely have to buy a new console to play the most recent games.

3. You needn't tweak
This may be true, but it's not an entirely good thing. If you have less money to spend on your PC, you may not have the best parts, but through a bit of tweaking you can still play games. If you do have a ton of money, you can get the best parts and tweak a bit so you can play those games at nicer settings, and you can also upgrade parts as desired.

4. Lots of console exclusives
Granted, and this is probably the most valid point. Although I will say that there are some PC exclusives that people tend to use (Word, Excel, etc). People with consoles still tend to have to buy PC's anyway for these. If you are a really hardcore gamer, the availablity of exclusive games available on consoles will make the difference.

5. Xbox Live. Aside from Battlefield 2, I can't think of any online game that's currently better on PC.
How about PC only? Might I introduce you to a game called World of Warcraft? 7 million people reportedly enjoy it. While consoles may be better for FPS's, I would say that PC's with mouse and keyboard are better for social interaction in such games, and also lend themselves to be more easily updated with fresh content (i.e. WoW patches/expansions that can update the game fairly extensively).

6. Backwards compatibility
And how are people enjoying playing their Super Nintendo cartridges on their game cubes? Yes, perhaps Sony may be doing a better job of this, but others aren't. In addition you're paying for it.

7. Virus, adware, and spyware free
Chances are (especially given that this person wrote an article) that the author uses some sort of Word Processor, which means they are using a PC, which means that they already have to deal with these things. My suggestion to the author? Just be careful and stop visiting his midget porn websites. People tend to get into trouble most frequently when they voluntarily go to really questionable websites.

8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
The author even admits that PC's can do higher resolution graphics and modern TV's have digital inputs that will let you watch stuff from your computer on your TV (heck, there are a number of TV/Monitors out on the market these days). There are tons of wireless devices for PC's out on the market. You can play/work on your TV on your couch using your PC if you so choose. You can then switch back to your desk if you so choose and use your higher resolution monitor. The choice is yours with a PC. Not so with a console.

9. Controllers are more comfortable
So buy a comfortable, wireless controller for your PC. There's a ton of variations out there for you to choose from.

10. Controller innovation (Citing the Wii)
But wait a second, wasn't the author just talking about the backwards compatibility of the Sony Playstation? Can I play my old Super Nintendo games on it? Are you saying you want me to buy both a PS3 and a Wii (heck, there goes the price advantage of the consoles).

Most of the reasons given for using a console are just BS. If you are a hardcore gamer and need those exclusive games, then that's the reason to go for a console. Additionally if you are away from home and looking for a bit of gaming, then the handheld consoles are going to be hard to beat.

PC vs Consoles

[dcs]

I don't even know why people discuss this. Consoles have a better dollar value and always will. And PCs deliver more power and always will.

You can probably buy 100 consoles (*not* games!) for the value of a high-end gaming rig (literally), but there's nothing you can do to your console that will actually improve it.

And, in that respect, a PC evolves more smoothly too. And I don't mean you can "upgrade" your PC. You got PCI? Now there's AGP. You got AGP? Now there's PCI-Express. So you have to change the motherboard, and, by the way, that CPU is now obsolete, and so is the memory. You can usually keep the IDE cables, unless you went to SATA.

But you can buy a whole new PC next year, and play the games you already own *better*. Moreover, next year you can buy games that have improvements that aren't available today. The console cycle is much slower. They jump farther each time, but they take longer to jump.

Meaning, basically, that if you spend money enough to buy 1000 consoles each year, you'll have a much better experience than that which is possible with said consoles. And, on the other side, you just won't buy a PC capable of what that console is capable for the same amount of money.

This is all obvious. Why does anyone bother to argue over it?

Re:PC vs Consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you math-tarded? 100 consoles equals a high end gaming rig? The cheap XBOX360 is $300, what gaming computer costs $30,000? Perhaps you meant 10 times, but even that is wrong. Only rich idiots spend $3,000 on a gaming rig, it is easy to build or modify a computer equal to the XBox360 in performance for $500. So not even twice the price. Keep trolling tough, maybe you'll get it someday...

Re:PC vs Consoles

[dcs]

Troll??? This was all serious, and, in fact, obvious. I'd like to know from this guy who moderated me troll in what, exactly, does he disagree to the point of thinking this was a troll?

Does he think a US$200 console can beat a US$20000 computer?
Does he think a high-end computer starts at anything less than US$20000? (try building the computer of your dreams at Alienware...)
Does he think a US$600 computer can beat a PS3, or a US$400 computer an XBox360, or and US$200 any console at all?
Does he think a console life cicle takes less than five years?
Does he think you can't upgrade a computer every six months for something better?
Does he think computer games don't take advantage of computer upgrades?
Does he think this year's computer games aren't better than last years?
Does he think you can upgrade a console's processor or graphics card? Or add a physics or AI card it doesn't have?

I mean, these are all verifiable facts and numbers. And, still, someone thinks stating the obvious, and notice that I give pro and cons for BOTH sides, is a troll!

Hell, I don't even know which side I'm trolling for! :-) But it amazes me that someone is so blind to the bare facts that he thinks this is a troll... Sheesh!

Re:PC vs Consoles

[dcs]

Well, you are obviously unaquainted with high-end gaming rigs, or, perhaps, you build your own computer using components with a good price/benefit ratio. Like myself. Which doesn't stop ME from knowing what a good gaming rig costs. For instance, go to Alienware and build an Aurora or an Area51 computer with all optionals. It *starts* at US$5700, and you can't compare the basic model with the model with all optionals. It might be excellent, but it doesn't hold a candle to the model with all optionals. Ergo, the high end, by definition, is the model with all optionals. That model costs 100 times the price of a Playstation 2.

As for Xbox360, it just arrived on the market, so it has a higher price tag. And, even then, you can't match it's price/performance. Which is what I said.

I never said you needed to go to the highest end. I said that the highest end could cost 100 times, and it does. And I said that you can't build a computer that matches XBox 360 (for example) for the PRICE of the XBox 360.

So, maybe if you listen to what is being SAID instead of using your prejudice-colored glasses, YOU will get it someday. I prefer a computer, but I'm not dumb enough to understand the trade offs. I'm just curious why some people are...

Recent Experience of PC vs Console

[bhunachchicken]

I rarely ever game on a PC (or in my case, Linux) but I did get around to picking up a copy of Neverwinter Nights. My experience has put me off for life. Here are the order of events,

• Insert game CD in to drive and wait for install to complete (5 - 10 minutes)
• Game manual is on CD so am unable to kick back and read printed manual whilst waiting
• Install finishes. Load up game. Game crashes on character creation screen
• Discover I am required to download patch.
• Go to Bioware website to discover I must register to download patch
• Register with Bioware and wait for email.
• Email arrives, have to confirm by entering code in to Bioware website
• Navigate to patch download. Discover it is 103MBs (wait 5 - 10 minutes for it to download)
• Install patch
• Finally boot up game
• Spend another 10 minutes fiddling with graphical, audio and other settings to suit my hardware
• Total time elasped - Around 30 minutes.

Compare this with playing God of War on the PS2

• Turn on PS2
• Insert game disc
• Wait 30 seconds - 1 minute for game to load
• Configure sound volumes and screen ratio
• Play game
• Total time elasped - Around 3 minutes

I know which I prefer.

One word:

[Maugrim]

Subjective.

I don't have an agenda in this "war"...

[Greg_D]

... but when choosing between a high end PC or a next-gen console, I chose the console. My current PC with its creaky old GeForce 5700 is powerful enough to run almost any game that is currently being emulated by MAME and the other popular console/arcade emulators. I have no interest whatsoever in playing any of the MMORPGs out nowadays... my time to play video games is generally limited to a few nights a week and a few hours on a weekend.

I'm fully confident that in 3-4 years, video cards may be packaged with physics chips and other AI goodness, and when that happens, perhaps PCs will finally be able to do things that the next-gen consoles can't. But right now, with wireless controllers, headsets, and hard drives, there's virtually nothing that a PC can do in a game that a console can't do just as well.

Er... except freeware addons, macros, and some games manufacturers' refusal to give a player complete access to customizing his controls. Ya know, if ya like that sorta thing.

Seriously, though, I'm happy with my purchase, I tend to buy virtually brand new used games when my local store has buy 2 get 1 free sales on used games, and I can't see spending 2-3 grand on a top end gaming rig ever again. I bought a 360, extra controller, 1 year sub to xbox live gold, 6 games, and a widescreen LCD TV to play it on for less than 2 grand. For my money (and mine alone), it was the best purchase I could have made. The only negative about the entire purchase is that the early 360 lineup seems to be filled with way too many FPSes, with a noticable lack of games in the platform or arcade genres.

Good points...

[ylikone]

and they should be obvious. The article seemed to be reaching to make consoles sound better. I'll take a PC over a console for gaming any day! For me, the big point is being able to use a mouse for FPS on the PC. Playing FPS games on consoles is painful! Consoles are only great if you like repetitive arcade style gaming.... meh, not for me.

Tell me...

[ylikone]

Which one offers you limitless re-playability via playing with others over the internet? Which one offers a less linear storyline and more immersive environment. Which one is a true RPG and which is like an arcade game? I too know which I prefer.

Why compare differences of capability when...

[Ynsats]

...there is a major difference between the two that has nothing to do with how fast they run and how soon they become out of date?

Over and over and over again, we see the same stuff rehashed with the two sides forming up quickly. Both sides can be stereotyped and categorized. At some finer levels of classification, one can actually start to see similarities in personality traits of the users of both systems.

All that aside though, there are just some facts that cannot be refuted. Consoles are always behind the curve in hardware performance. Consoles don't need to be cutting edge though because they are optimized to run what they run and they can't and don't need to do much else. Consoles are cheap and easy to use. That's a given. Some days I wish my computer just turned on and did what I needed it to do without me telling it to do it. Both can play using multiple players but a console doesn't require that each player has his/her own console. The list can go on and on.

The major difference that tips the favor in the "PC Elitist's" favor is the fact that all those people out there dumping big money into extremely high performance rigs are what drives the market. Without them, it is safe to say that console gaming would be no where near the level that it is now because it is likely that the hardware would not exist in that thread.

Sure, we have the rules of computing power will double every so often and market growth will follow that and such but the only reason those exist is because the demand for the performance is there. The faster and more powerful these PC's become, the more we find we can do with them. The more we can do, the more we want to do it faster. Since consoles are a packaged deal and unmodifiable and unupgradable, it's the PC market that drives the advancements. Not by the users though. It drives the market because both PC and console game users demand better graphics, faster game play, more complex games and better A.I. in the games. The console manufacturers use PC's to develop that hardware and without the PC, the console would not be.

So yeah, I own several consoles and several PC's and anyone with two eyes and even remedial levels of intelligence can see that a PC is a tool used to make the toys of console gaming. It's not about which is better and who the elitist is. It's about where it all came from and if the PC makes the console and continues to stay light years ahead of the console all the while improving the console then how can the console be better? Is it better because millions of kids beg mom and dad to buy it for them for some holiday or birthday? Is it better because more people with little inclination to computer useage can participate in the gaming experience? It's hard to say because nothing in the posted article actually directly relates to system performance but rather relates to demographical stereotypes that use performance, useability and functional characteristics as indrect support of ideas based more in social similarties than physical facts of hardware.

The final question I have to ponder is if consoles are so great then how come some of the best titles ever released for the PC have to be "dumbed down" for the consoles just so they can run a basic version of a game that was much more complex and involved on a PC platform? If it is all about a "gaming experience" then why can't the people involved in such arguments realize that the "money pit" of a PC has much more potential for being an immersive experience than any console ever could? That seems like the fundamental object of most of the arguements coming from the console side of the war and it directly contradicts thier argument and only serves toshow proof that the PC is a superior platform, even by the console lover's standard.

If we are going to compare consoles vs. PC's then compare consoles to PCs. If we are going to compare console users to PC users then compare the users but don't put it under the guise of consoles vs. PC's. Then maybe the arguments wouldn't get out of hand and never finish. Otherwise, we will continue to see the same silly arguments like this article posed over and over ad nauseum.

3 words why pc gaming is the best

[dk3nn3dy]

counter strike: source

Pirating game on PC is so much easier!

[ylikone]

Here is the actual #1 reason PC gaming beats console gaming! No need to void your warranty because of mod chips. So easy and quick to download all the latest gamez from the bit torrent sites.

PC

[Vexorian]

Simple "reasons". I can mod PC games, I can make my own PC games, I can legally download free PC games and a console can't help me make my homework.

Re:PC

[CronoCloud]

Are you sure you couldn't do your homework on a console? Say a console with Linux installed? Like a PS2 with the LInux kit, or the PS3.

PCs are cheaper

[foreverdisillusioned]

I don't know why this myth is still alive. Yeah, it was true back in the day--very, VERY true when you compared a $100 Nintendo with a $2000+ lower end PC--but the price of consoles keep rising while the price of a PC has been in a freefall for years now.

Do the math. If you save the chassis/ps, monitor, hard drive (really, a 5 year old 60-80 giger is just fine for gaming--any more is necessarly only for media collection) and peripherals from your current box and pick up a good mobo+proc deal on Outpost.com or Newegg.com along with some value ram, you can easily have a modern machine for under $200, even under $150. (If you're skiddish about DIY boxes, you can troll a site like Fatwallet.com and within a month I'll guarantee you'll see a very respectable box for under $300 shipped--probably a Dell or eMachines--but for the moment let's assume you're not technophobic.)

So how much was the 360 again... with a hard drive? Oh look, that leaves you with $200 for a shiny new graphics card, which is good enough to easily play games for many years to come. No, in 3 or 4 years' time you probably won't be able to set the resolution and antialiasing features to the max without some slowdown, but you'll still kick the crap out of console graphics, if indeed graphics is your sole reason for PC gaming--me, I'm more inclined to buy a $100 graphics card. (I'm a PC gamer not for the graphics, but because the games I like--RTSes/TBSes, FPSes, non-Final Fantasy style RPGs--have very crappy/nonexistent console equivalents. Morrowind for the PC is a completely different game from Morrowind for the Xbox, and Halo isn't even remotely close to HL2 or Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2. And yes, there was HL2 for the Xbox, but it was an utter joke.)

And hell, most of the time you won't even have to spend the $200 to upgrade your mobo/proc/ram. Mine are 3 year old and still more than enough for today's games. Moore's Law might not be dead (depends on whom you ask), but the need for exponentially faster CPUs for gaming certainly is. I wouldn't be too shocked if a mid-range system of today can run games in 2012 so long as you've got a couple gigs of ram and a video card that's only 1-2 years old.

So yeah, console gamers you keep telling yourselves that your $400 Xbox 360 and the extra $10/month you spend for the privlege of playing it over the internet (I didn't even take this into account--this is an additional $120 a year, thus rendering any price quibbing moot. An additional $500-$600 spent between console generations means a PC will *always* be cheaper.\) saves you sooooo much money. Just pardon us if us stereotypical, elitist PC gamers laugh our asses off at you and your crazy delusions.

Now, for the caveats: I'm willing to grant the Wii an exception to all this because 1) It's going to be cheap. 2) Online play will be free. 3) The Gamecube had tons of wonderful games that simply have no PC equivalent (Mario Party, Smash Bros. Melee, platformers, etc.) and I expect the same will be true of the Wii. I'm also willing to grant an exception for the techno-phobic who absolutely do not want to open their box even to swap out a graphics card--for these people, it'll always be cheaper to buy a new console. But I do NOT think this is an acceptable excuse here, amongst my fellow geeks. If you prefer platformers and party games and FF-style RPGs and thus you prefer consoles then say so, but enough with the "OMG PCS ARE SO EXPENSIVE!!!11" bullshit. It's not true, and it hasn't been true for years now.

One rebuttal to kill them all

[Travoltus]

Mods.

You can mod PC games with user-made content and basically make the game live forever through free add-ons.

Console games are incapable of having mods of any sort, much less user-made. Consoles are banana republics which put your machine under the absolute control of someone else, not you.

Many, many gaming careers are launched by average gamers who make mods for PC games (see: Counterstrike) and then who move on to getting jobs making games for the PC and for the console. But for the software devel kits (SDK's) released for PC games for the purpose of modding, we wouldn't be where we are today - console or PC wise - with regards to gaming.

PC gaming, through the liberal-minded SDK concept, enables end users to innovate and produce new gaming content within hours.

What opportunity does the console scene give you, console gamers, to make good on your innovation skills and creativity?

Re:One rebuttal to kill them all

[CronoCloud]

Net Yaroze
RPG Maker 1
Playstation 2 Linux kit
RPG Maker 2 and 3
Linux Preinstalled on the PS3

And I should remind you, if you've been obsessively playing/modding counter-strike for 5 years you're probably not buying many games. Thereby making PC gaming more of a niche and less attractive to developers who want to make money

Re:One rebuttal to kill them all

[Travoltus]

How many people have actually made distributable games using the Linux kit? Are they free, like they are for the PC community?

And your commentary about developers making money cuts right to my point - PC games let the gamers control their own experience. PC gaming might be a "niche" in your book, but in PC gamers' book it means more freedom and less lock-in.

Re:a sweet computer will get the girls.. wait no i

[spyrochaete]

Depreciation is an advantage of PCs. Halo 2 will look the same in 2 years as it did when you bought it for your 360, but you can buy yesterday's superstar video card for peanuts and breathe new life into your whole game library.

Plus, I played Phantasmagoria on the Vista RC1 beta this weekend. I also played Jones int he Fast Lane with 3xAdvMAME filters to make it appear smooth an rounded at 1280x1024. How many 10-year old games can you play on a modern console? Without buying them yet again, I mean. How much better do they look?

Console is a one trick pony. PC is an engine that can be applied to millions of tasks, and can be augmented and improved in millions of ways.

Go play with your toy. I'll have saved, quit, checked my email and ordered a pizza in the time it took you to run around looking for a save point.

Is it even a contest? Console wins!

[Fierythrasher]

Let me preface this by saying I am a die hard computer gamer. I own (have legally bought) over 300 computer games and for many years ran a web site called reviewgames.com (now off-line, so don't bother trying it) where I reviewed classic and new PC games. I was there for the introduction of those pass through Voodoo 2 3D cards. I remember when you needed the Voodoo cards for some games to run, and a different card for other games to run. I remember when Majestic broke the 4th wall of gaming in new and imaginative ways, and when the Sims ran my life for many MANY months.

But fast forward to today. I have a power gaming PC rig...but what can I play on it? I went to my local Game Stop the other day, and the PC games are down to a single rack mid store, where it used to be a full wall. The ONLY PC game I hear about any more is World of Warcraft, and I'm just not into MMORPGs (despite my unused Star Wars Galaxies account I pay for monthly).

PCs used to be the domain of great games. While I would argue consoles ALWAYS did arcade-style games like Street Fighter better, PCs had the reign of first person shooters, strategy, real-time strategy, space simulators, third person action games, and so much more. But over the past few years it seems like entire genres of games are dying (space based flight sims...have there been any since Microsoft's Allegience?) and more and more all we get on the PC are console games with hopefully slightly higher resolution.

I really cannot see why anyone would drop $1200 on a high end SLI graphics card configuration in this day and age when there's no games to justify it.

In the 80's the games were the domain of the consoles, Atari and Coleco, and of course, Nintendo offering many more titles and better graphics than most PCs. Around the age of the 486 PC games came into their own and I felt that for most of the 90's and the first part of the new millennium PC games were where it was at. I even went back to school to become a game designer, but I really only wanted to work on PC games, not console. But I felt the push in 2002-2003 that the companies weren't interested in making PC games, only console. And now...

Am I wrong? Or have consoles finally won?

Forgetting one big point for PCs:

[ghaltmann]

PC's don't just play games. I can rip DVDs, edit movies, download anything I want, work, play music, compose music, write erotic Star Trek Fan fiction... Consoles just do one thing. My "PC" is my means for living, and it happens to also play games. Worth every penny if you ask me.

They both win.

[dreemernj]

I play MvC2, CvS2, House of the Dead 2, and Typing of the Dead on the Dreamcast I bought for $50 (using a $3 keyboard and 2x $5 light guns). Awesome, console exclusive(except TotD), and cheap.

I play Half Life 2/CS:S and UT2K4 on my computer, which was under $700 1.5 years ago when I bought it (and HL2 still looks amazing). Great graphics, free netplay that is completely enjoyable, and the ability to use a high res mouse and a good solid keyboard.

They both win. Because they are very different gaming experiences.

It's like arguing over what is better to drive to the beach in, a Hummer or a Ferrari. With the Ferrari I can bring a friend and some sodas and be in the beach parking lot before the Hummer stops for its first refill. With the Hummer I can bring a group of friends, my entire fridge, and drive till I hit the water. Both are fun options. Not that I have either of those vehicles or anything...

Why I read articles like this.

[JungleBoy]

I read articles like this just to make sure I have all the ads blocked by Adblock+. Seriously.

Thoughts on PC gaming

[Borg453b]

Since the C64 i've always been a bit of a pc fan-boy. Had the amiga, when people bought the snes etc. My social gaming was in the form of lan - parties.. sure you don't watch the same screen - but you do get to shout at each other.

One point I havent seen mentioned here is mods & indi gaming:

Action Quake (q2), Counterstrike (hl), Team Fortress (classic), Vampire slayer (hl1), Science and Industry, Day of defeat, Team arial combat (Tribes 2), Action Half-life, Train (Hl1), Natural Selection (hl1), The hidden (hl1), Alien Swarm (UT) and recently Forts(Hl2), Desert Combat (BF1942) are all mods I've had a lot of fun with.

Sure - these are all some form of FPS, with the exception of Alien Swarm (natural selection does feel like a mixture between an RTS and and FPS).

I havent tried the ship yet - and portal is coming out (started as a mod) but it looks interesting.

I recently purchased the most excellent Armadillo Run.

The great thing about such projects is that people dare to try create something unique that hasn't necessarily sold before. They're adapting and playing with existing concepts.

Distribution:

As much as people have berated it - "steam" seems like a move in the right direction: The marketing and distribution of mods and small games, with an inbuildt player profile.

I've already purchased "episode one".. and speaking of such addons, I bought "Euro forces" for BF2 (using EAs steam clone).

Backwards compatability and emulation:

Sure - you get repackaged arcade games or classics for your consoles, but all in all, you are more likely to get old games to run on a pc, than a console unless you hack it.

Im currently replaying MoM.. but I have to admit it was a bit of a hassle to get to work properly in Xp.

Controllers and controller friendly games:

My brother is a huge emulation fan, but he also loves modern platformers - such as the prince of Persia series and the much overlooked "Psychonauts". He purchased a dual arcade controller for his emu - kicks and he now also owns a wireless game pad that seems to work out right for him. Don't ever challenge him in street fighter 2 or any clone here of :D

One console port we do get a lot of fun out of is the excellent "mashed". Think 4 player "super cars 2" in 3D.

Whine: Oblivion is somewhat ruined by its "platform friendly interface".. a consoley inventory and map system upsets a spoiled pc rpg player such as myself.

Consoles and me: My started working for a major games importer recently; and she gets consoles and tons of games for free (psp, ps2). I have to admit that I had fun playing "God of war" and "Shadow of the colossus", as well as "Buzz" with friends - and I'll play her games often, when I see her. So far, nothing have blown me away, but my brother tells me that "Guitar hero" and "RE4" are unique experiences.

The only console I've ever owned was a gameboy 1 - though I tried several games. I know many who swear by them these days; but seeing as I am mostly an FPS, Strategy, RTS and Rpg kind of guy.. they don't seem the way for me.

I know that I am missing out on a great deal of great games.. but so do you, unless you go with all the available consoles.

The thing we need to worry about is, perhaps not as much the technical medium for the games, but creativity and the gaming genres. "Proper" digital rpgs (Baldursgate, Fallout - and even deus ex) seem to disappear in favour of autonomous eye-candy battles with linear story telling (no - im not a big fan of FF and their likes), and adventure games seem lost too.

Coop campaigns are also something I miss (hired guns, system shock 2).

These days I mostly play: Civ4, HL2 (+ mods and episodes), BF2 and BaldursGate 2 still (coop with my bro).

No, not exactly...

[NalosLayor]

"Sick of PC snobs bragging about their "superior" gaming rigs?

No, I'm sick of irrational fanbois telling me why I need to throw away my pc and spend hundreds (nearing thousands these days) on a console that is terrible at running the kinds of games I like.

And I'm also sick of the same fanbois going on about how the latest Sony PS n (where n = the current generation + 1) or Microsoft Xbox xxx (where xxx = the current generation * 360) is going to totally 'pwn' everything else and completely wipe out the PC as a gaming platform.

WTF is slashdot becomming?

[quibbler]

You know... there was a time where this article on /. would have been titled "from the I-don't-know-Jack department..." and would have been shown as a humerous example of cluelessness, but somehow the readership (and editors?!) have become techno-groupies instead of geeks-of-clue. (ex: one of the items is that 'the game won't work on a pc 100% of the time' - if you're in this category, find another forum and *leave* slashdot, kkthx bye) Get together or become the next Wired.

Computers have better Price Flexibility

[The Raven]

I mostly game on a PC. I got my first gaming-only system 18 months ago... a DS. And I'll be getting my first-ever console in a few months... a Wii. I finally got a gaming system for two reasons... I have more money now, and these systems offer gameplay that is impossible to find for the PC.

Normally I game on a PC (and I program, and do tech support... I'm a full geek), and I always have, even when I was making nearly no money. A PC offers more price flexibility than a console does.

When you're poor, you can play free games. I can play multiplayer far easier than on a console (until XBox Live came out), extending the enjoyable life of my games. I can pirate games, TV, and movies when I'm broke.

When you're rich, you can do more on a PC than with a console. I can get a new video card and play the same games in higher resolutions. I can buy bleeding edge equipment, new games. I can play a wide variety of MMOs. I can play hot new titles on a big monitor with far more graphical splendour than the console.

The PC just scales better than a console to match your money situation. I can also use the same hardware for useful things (I work from home on Saturdays), not possible with a console. The console is a closed platform... prices are fixed, hardware is fixed, and you can't really change that without some heavy duty hacking.

The Raven

Real Life Vs Consoles Vs PC's

[kentrel]

1. Stupid arguments like "Consoles Vs PCs" can be ended with a swift kick to the nuts 2. 12 Year old brats can be avoided easily, and if not - stepped on. 3. When you kill your roommate with a real gun, he stays dead 4. Women are nicer, and don't carry lethal knives, heavy armour, and/or the ability to roundhouse kick the shit out of you 5. You can travel to a new destination without waiting for the scenery to load 6. Trolls, nerds, and psychopaths are less likely to be roaming about 7. The threat of camping is greatly reduced 8. Due to #7 the surprise factor when you camp is greatly increased 9. Don't have to fight huge fucking monsters when you've finished your day's tasks 10. The sex is better

Re:Real Life Vs Consoles Vs PC's

[Firefly1]

I guess some sarcasm is intended, but some of those points just beg for dissection...

1. Stupid arguments like "Consoles Vs PCs" can be ended with a swift kick to the nuts

If and only if you're willing to put up with the assault and battery charges... or more physical retaliation from the person whose nuts you've just kicked.

4. Women are nicer, and don't carry lethal knives, heavy armour, and/or the ability to roundhouse kick the shit out of you

I wouldn't bet on any of these assumptions if I were you.

9. Don't have to fight huge fucking monsters when you've finished your day's tasks

I don't know about this; some commutes are sure trying to qualify... Besides, as Ellen Ripley put it, you won't see those monsters screwing each other over for a percentage.

Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[zoomba]

To start, I'm primarily a PC gamer. I like the genres more, I like the controls more, and I like having the best looking visuals. However, not for a second can I delude myself into thinking that PC gaming is cheaper than modern console gaming. A lot of people here seem to be railing on PC gaming being cheaper with the argument that you have to get completely new hardware every 4-6 years.

A modern, well-equipped gaming PC will run you at the moment probably close to $1,000.
A modern console will average you about $500 with extra controllers and addon-bits (I'm averaging from the Wii to the PS3).

We're not going to include the cost of a TV (high def or otherwise) into the cost of the console, since many people would have one regardless of their console purchase.

Ok. So you spend $500 every 4 years when your new console iteration comes out.
Now, what happens if you don't upgrade that PC for 4 years? Chances are the games in year 4 won't run. PC gamers need to continually feed cash into their systems to be able to play current games. The console will play games released for it the same at year 1 as year 4. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say that PC gamers will try to be frugal and just upgrade their video card yearly, and they'll be price conscious about it and buy one card behind current bleeding edge. Those run you about $250.

So, in terms of hardware, after 4 years the spending looks something like this:
Console gamer: $500.
PC Gamer: $2,000. ($1000 PC + $250/yr)

And that's a very conservative estimate for the PC gamer. I know I put way more into my PC yearly. RAM, video cards, and then every four years or so you probably need to do such a fundamental upgrade for new tech (AGP -> PCIe, the move to 64bit, whatever) that you'll essentially buy a new PC again.

The console is clearly the cheapest gaming option. That doesn't make it "better" by any means, it just simply is cheaper.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[Ash-Fox]

You forgot the yearly fees for things like xbox live so you can play online.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[zoomba]

I'm not counting services (XBL, a MMO subscription) or software in the cost. I'm talking about core costs to having a gaming device. Online gaming is not yet completely central to gaming. It's still optional.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[travisco_nabisco]

You also forgot that if someone owns a console, they more than likely own a PC which will be replaced every 2 years or so. So across the four year lifespan of a console you need to add in anywhere from $1000 to $2000 depending on what the computer is used for.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[Magius_AR]

A modern, well-equipped gaming PC will run you at the moment probably close to $1,000. A modern console will average you about $500 with extra controllers and addon-bits (I'm averaging from the Wii to the PS3).

You claim to be a PC gamer and think $1000 is the starting point for a machine that plays games?

Full systems decked out with Core 2 Duos are selling at Dell right now for just over $500 that will play every game on the market right now at graphical settings that STILL beat consoles, AND they do a hell of alot more than play games.
On the flipside, consoles (which used to be in the sub-$200 category), are quickly approaching the $500++ range for just the BASE SYSTEM (see PS3). Then you need to buy extra controllers and all that other rubbish which is ridiculously overpriced (~$30 per controller?!?).

Consoles USED to be the cheaper option. Those days are long past.

If people put more money into their comp than I've already stated, it's because they want fancier graphics...ala F.E.A.R @ 1600 x 1200 w/ all graphicals goodies turned on. That stuff requires top dollar parts. To simply run the game at a respectable resolution (say 800 x 600) with medium to high graphical settings, comparable to what you might get from a console, does _not_ require such an investment.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[Nightspirit]

Your just over $500 (nearly $700 actually) comes with an nvidia 7300LE, which just wont cut it for game that are similar to xbox 360 generation. Your box upgraded to the 7900 would cost $200 more, nearing the $1000 price the parent stated.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[Unicorn Giggles]

"We're not going to include the cost of a TV (high def or otherwise) into the cost of the console, since many people would have one regardless of their console purchase."

Then take out all but the 250 for a video card since everyone already has a computer, then add in the cost of xbox live.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[Magius_AR]

Your just over $500 (nearly $700 actually) comes with an nvidia 7300LE, which just wont cut it for game that are similar to xbox 360 generation. Your box upgraded to the 7900 would cost $200 more, nearing the $1000 price the parent stated.

No it doesn't.

If you configure as Video Ready without Monitor (which is fair, since you aren't counting the cost of a TV into the console price), that's -$200...the 7900 GS upgrgade is then +$200, which is a wash.

The price comes out to $729 with the Core 2 Duo.
It's $679 if you go with the Pentium D, which I think is _still_ fast enough to run all the games out there.

And that's all before Dell coupon codes, which tend to be very frequent. I see 10-20% off coupons all the time on dealcatcher.
Believe me, it's nowhere near the $1000 price point stated by the parent.

When you count console add-ins that are basically "must-buys" (like the overpriced controllers already mentioned), the price comparison is damn near equal, if not in the favor of PCs.

I'm also pretty sure I could find a cheaper example than the one stated as well. I just didn't spend much time looking.

Re:Console Gaming *IS* Cheaper

[Magius_AR]

Oh, I might also add...that's buying new.

When you're talking about upgrading, which the parent also mentioned, you're rarely upgrading things like the case, power supply, sound card, CD-ROMs/burners, etc...normally you're just looking at a video card and maybe a CPU upgrade in a 3-4 year span.
That drops cost _alot_ for a PC upgrade.
A console by nature requires you replace everything.

More Expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this guy is just sore he spent 3 grand (wth?) on a gaming rig. The article was poorly thought out as well. Maybe if you live at home and your parents have an HDTV sitting around will it work out cheaper with great graphics..

A computer is now a neccessity for most people and 99.9% of anyone wanting to play video games. People WILL already have a computer at home. For a few hundred dollars on a video card, a half decent web browsing machine can be easily made into a decent gaming rig. Browsing the web, emails, not having to swap in and out games, loading speeds, image quality, typing in game are all things that are not that fun to do using a console. Cost now is cheaper than ever as well. The author mentions that consoles are sold below cost and the profit is made on the games. Perhaps he should consider why the consoles are sold at or below cost in the first place, because they need to compete with PC's! The reality is that people need a lot of incentives to go for a console over a PC.

Where a console really shines is for having friends over all playing on the same screen, but for any games where it's just you sitting at the screen, for me that's 99% of the time, consoles cant compete for the above reasons.

Amen

[frankgod]

For a long time I switched on and off between console and PC games. But I am trending more and more towards console. My computer has enough oomph to handle recent games at an acceptable level for me. My main beef is number two on the list. I was sooo excited when Doom 3 came out I got it right away. After messing around with downloading new drivers and changing settings it still wouldn't run. Well, at least it makes a good display piece because the box is still sitting on a shelf by my computer. Meanwhile, I've played through a few dozen ps2 games.

Blah blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

It's such a shame that there are /. users who actually read TFA and actually responded with counter-arguments to pointless fanboyism... I commend the /.ers who have either refrained from commenting or posted the sane 'Who cares, play what you like on what you like'-type comments.

"Boohoo, some Internet people say that their hardware is better than mine! I must prove them wrong with my superior intellect." Damn ten year olds, get off my Slashdot! Even 4Chan hardly bothers with this 'which is better?' crap.

Advantage consoles

[marvelite]

One great thing about console is six years from now, when I buy the latest game for my PS3, it will run on the same configuration. The same cannot be said about PC. As you can see the surge in quality from the first generation PS3 say, the original Burnout to the third iteration or Metal Gear Solid 3. I've read an interview (cannot recall where) a developer said he never imagine PS2 capable of running games like God Of War. Since all next gen console have USB, hopefully in the future developers will have keyboard and mouse support for FPS and RTS games, taking away one more advantage from PC. And we will be playing in front of a 42 inch HD TV. Bought a I7 inch LCD monitor two years ago and now watching enviously at I9 inches LCD that are available at half the price with better refresh rate. I think that the same price/performance curve will be available for Hi Def TV.

NewEgg Shopping list?

[KIFulgore]

From article: "Ever encounter a PC snob in the wild? They're those elitist types whose forum signatures read like a Newegg shopping receipt."
That's the God-honest truth, I hate that.

Interesting that the "PCs crash, consoles don't" argument came up again in these discussions. That used to be true a few years ago, unfortunately if the XBox 360 is any indication there will be comparable crash rates for consoles and PCs.

If you really want games that don't crash, buy Nintendo products.

Console?

[lazarus]

Before I read TFA, I was thinking 'nethack' vs 'diablo', not 'xbox' vs 'windows'. Damn I'm getting old... For crying out loud, could we please specify "gaming console" next time?

FWIW, I for one would prefer the former comparison. Real games are played in text mode - more speed, less cruft.

what a load a bull crap ..

[sundru]

everyone knows pc games are better *hehe* sundru

PC games

[Angst Badger]

Personally, I'm just tired of PC games that can't run decently on anything more than six months old.

Re:PC games

[Angst Badger]

Lately, it seems like some moderators are handing out troll ratings like candy. How was that a troll? Stating the obvious, perhaps, but a troll?

This argument does not really exist anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

PC: PC.

Console: PC that only does one thing (well.. two if you count overheating when you set it on the shag carpet).

The only real difference is that a decent PC costs $1500 and an hour of build time whereas the single-function PC (Console) costs a mere $600 + $900 for a TV that can take advantage of a decent resolution.

Plus when a game doesn't work on my PC I at least have a chance to fix it... unlike, say, PGR....

Just sayin'.

What copier did you use?

[tepples]

And [with PC gaming] you can make backups.

Even with Starforce?

Currently I play all these on PC, using emulation.

What brand of hardware did you use to dump your NES, Sega Genesis, Super NES, or Nintendo 64 cartridges into computer files on your PC? And is such hardware still sold?

It can hardly do anything else. If you want to surf the net, or get some work done, or write a letter, you need a PC.

You can buy a PC that runs Windows for both gaming and "computer" stuff, or you can buy a console for gaming and a Macintosh computer for "computer" stuff.

Re:What copier did you use?

[miyako]

They used to sell hardware to dump various cartridges onto the PC, I can't remember what it was called now, but they were available. Of course for most cartridge based systems, documentation has been done to the point where it is possible to build a reader yourself. You can also still find blank SNES carts for sale every once in a while, although I never bothered with buying any since it's much easier to just run games under ZSNES or Snes9x. Of course, as I understand the law, it's perfectly legal to download a rom from a website if you own the game anyway.
Just thought I would point out that there are some of us who do have legal roms, and there is still a strong (but dwindling) development community making SNES games. I remember reading on slashdot a while back about a guy who is making Grand Theft Auto for the NES.

Freeware, shareware, and mods are PC exclusive

[tepples]

Lots of console exclusives to choose from.

But then there are lots of PC exclusives, such as virtually all freeware and shareware games. And almost all "mods" for games are also PC exclusive, except those few (such as Counter-Strike) that the original game's publisher decides to adopt and turn into an official game.

Consoles for gaming. PCs for stuff

[^_^x]

I spend a ton of time on the PC, but I keep very few games for it... I mostly game on various consoles. I've kind of given up on PC gaming.

With a console:
I pop the disc in, hit power, and the game starts. It will play exactly as the designers saw it when they were making it, and it always will.
As time progresses, the games will look better and better as the devs master the hardware - at no cost to me.

With a PC, I try to install the game, if it's not afraid of my OS because it's a.) too new or b.) made for servers. ...also, if I have the space. Games that take over 5GB on my hard disk (then still need the disc to run! NICE!) don't last long no matter how good they are.
I may need to up or downgrade my video or sound drivers, or DirectX version for some older games.
Some games also require hours if not days tweaking config files to make them both look AND play decently.
For playing much older games, like anything with Glide acceleration, I'll never see them accelerated again. Most Glide wrappers seem either slow, or fatally flawed to the point of psychadelic graphics failure or crashing.
Then every so often, you find out you have StarForce, or some other form of copy protection virusware invisibly installed and wreaking havoc.
For an FPS or RTS, a mouse is way better than a controller. For anything else, I'd rather have a controller than a 101-key keyboard.
In time, games will look better and better, just like on consoles, but they will quickly start to run choppy, even if they're made to look worse than older games optimized for older hardware just to gain a few fps.
And finally, a hot 3D card costs as much or more than a console, except it wouldn't work in my current PC - I'd need a new CPU, RAM, mobo, probably case and PSU, AND a new 3D card.

I don't know

[pravuil]

get both and make everyone happy. Spend, spend, spend. It will trickle down to you sooner or later.

Are small developers allowed to use controllers?

[tepples]

And if it's made for a controller, it's a console game.

What about if it's made for a controller but also made by a smaller developer?

A Touch of War for DS

[tepples]

I'm not aware of any [real-time war sims] on the DS at all.

Like A Touch of War?

What PC games support USB gamepads?

[tepples]

Controls? A word and an acronym: USB gamepad

Where is the large library of PC native games that support two or more USB gamepads connected to one PC?

I crank up ZSNES to play Super Metroid

I'm interested in getting into ZSNES. Is it hard to copy Super NES Game Paks to PC files? What brand of copier do you recommend? But then you're still recommending console because Super Metroid is still nominally a Super NES exclusive (notwithstanding a possible rerelease on Wii).

Re:What PC games support USB gamepads?

[geminidomino]

Can someone mod this prick down please? Everytime someone mentions some emulator he responds with the same goddamn troll.

Re:What PC games support USB gamepads?

[tepples]

Everytime someone mentions some emulator he responds with the same goddamn troll.

Only because the arguments of people who praise emulation amount to "PCs are better than consoles because PCs let you do something illegal." But more importantly, the popularity of emulation doesn't help the native PC gaming scene, just like piracy of Windows doesn't help the Linux scene.

Re:What PC games support USB gamepads?

[geminidomino]

That doesn't mean you have to post the same thing, which doesn't make that point very well, fifty goddamn times in the same goddamn story.

Re:What PC games support USB gamepads?

[tepples]

So what should I do in future articles if fifty people appear to have the same misconception?

Re:What PC games support USB gamepads?

[geminidomino]

1) Find a new way of making your point. You've been using that goddamned snarky "what hardware do you recommend for copying $SYSTEM carts to the pc" for months (I remember your floundering when I actually answered you, re: Gameboy, some months back).

2) Let it go. If you've been on this crusade this long, then either they don't get it or, far more likely, they don't give a damn.

Re:What PC games support USB gamepads?

[Firefly1]

Where is the large library of PC native games that support two or more USB gamepads connected to one PC?

That's pretty much my overarching question: given that (as far as I know, anyway) there are no real technical hurdles to such things, why do they not exist? We might be getting into self-fulfilling prophecy here: perception that fighting games don't work on PCs leads to few folks willing to try; that fact of some of those efforts being less than par doesn't help.

Is it hard to copy Super NES Game Paks to PC files? What brand of copier do you recommend?

I'm afraid I am not able to answer either of those questions due to lack of relevant knowledge.

But then you're still recommending console because Super Metroid is still nominally a Super NES exclusive (notwithstanding a possible rerelease on Wii).

Wii rereleases aside, I for one wonder why the console makers have never come up with official emulators. Super Metroid is just one of many good games cursed to be bound to a dying/dead system. Another example: I missed the Dreamcast, but it'd be nice to get to play JGR or Project Justice with little hassle...

What PC games support USB gamepads?

[tepples]

The USB thing I have hooked up to my case with the two analog sticks, the "+" direction button, 4 thumb buttons, two middle buttons, and four index-trigger buttons (resembling a PS2 controller) must be something else. /sarcasm off.

I have one PC and four USB gamepads. Which PC native game will let me, my two younger cousins, and my neighbor use them effectively?

Too often, PC multiplayer requires multiple PCs

[tepples]

if you go the console route, you might have to get multiple consoles to play the games you want, whereas PC might handle all of the games for you...

No, you get one console and multiple PCs. See, most multiplayer PC games are designed to accept input from only one player per machine. The GameCube, on the other hand, can show all four players on one screen in Super Smash Bros. Melee or Bomberman or Gauntlet or other similar games.

Controllers, plural, for a PC?

[tepples]

You can buy controllers for a PC.

But which titles will use them? I have one PC, four USB controllers, and three friends; which shared-screen PC native games do you recommend for us?

Re:Controllers, plural, for a PC?

[Mcgreag]

Guilty Gear Isuka maybe? Yes there is a PC version and yes it supports 4 people all fighting at the same time.

Re:Controllers, plural, for a PC?

[haystor]

Legend of Zyll.

Re:Controllers, plural, for a PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about when I want to tell you to go fuck yourself on my Gamecube? Where's the keyboard? And when I need to Photoshop the goatse man to have your god damned head in his rectum? Where's my Photoshop?

You are not clever. You're not saying anything we don't already know. You're not adding to the discussion. Why do you insist on trying to turn a PC into something it's not? You're forcing a border condition... If you want to sit around with your gay ass-buddy friends and play Smath Bros then jerk eachother off, buy a motherfucking Gamecube, a tube of Astroglide and shut the fuck up. Or a buy a frisbee and go the fuck outdoors. Or a buy a god damned revolver, and do us all a favor.

To sum up, fuck you. Fuck your mother. Fuck the horse you all rode in on.

Re:Controllers, plural, for a PC?

[Fallingcow]

I doubt that you were asking the question for the purpose of recieving an answer, but Serious Sam I and II support split-screen multiplayer.

Freeware, shareware, and mods are PC exclusive

[tepples]

Japanese developers (who make a huge amount of games - Nintendo alone is the second biggest games publisher in the world) still hardly ever release PC versions.

True, some people like games with a Japanese mindset. But other people like games with a freeware/shareware mindset. Still other people like to mod existing games or even develop games from scratch. Which platform is better for freeware/shareware games? Which platform is better for learning to develop and market such games yourself?

Halo will run on anything

[tepples]

Perhaps you're wanting to play Halo3 on your shiny new PS3

I've played Halo 2 on an original PlayStation and Halo 5 on a Dreamcast. I've even played Halo 2 on a Game Boy Advance. Your point?

Re:Halo will run on anything

[Dutchmaan]

"Your point?"

from the OP - "Point being, consoles have their downside too"

How many players per PC?

[tepples]

At the same time, console style controllers are readily available for PCs for MUCH less than the cost of an extra console controller.

But how many console controllers can I plug into a PC and have a typical PC game recognize them all?

Re:a sweet computer will get the girls.. wait no i

[not already in use]

I installed linux on my XBOX, and play all sorts of 10 year old games. With all sorts of fancy filters to make the graphics smooth. On a real tv. With a real controller. With real people. Oh, and I can check e-mail too, all in the time it takes you to jerk off to your 3D Mark score.

Re:a sweet computer will get the girls.. wait no i

[spyrochaete]

If only you could do all that stuff out of the box without breaking the DMCA and voiding your warranty. I'd be on the Xbox bandwagon in a second if that were the case. That's admittedly an impressive lineup of features. For some reason MAME games look better on low-res TV than on high-res monitors.

Let me sum it up in one sweep why pcs are better

[unity100]

The very fact that there are people needing to put forth "10 reasons" why consoles are better is in itself rock solid proof that pcs are better.

Niche!

[Gli7ch]

What we need to remember is that Computer Games have always been a niche market and always will be. When most people play games, they just want to plug it in and have it work. They don't want a steep learning curve, they don't want to tweak their configs, they just want to have some quick clean fun.

Some people aren't like that. Some people like having the greatest graphics, the best framerates, the slickest mods, the most twinked Warlock. And they're willing to pay premium for that. Console gamers like the plug and play, computer gamers think "hey, I use my computer for all this crap anyway, might as well whack in a graphics card and do something fun with it".

For me, the biggest alure of computer gaming is the multi-functionality and the room to tweak. I dig that staff, and a lot of the geekier gamers do. But when the WoW servers go down here on a Teusday night, we fire up the Gamecube and the Xbox and lounge around on beanbags playing Super Smash Brothers etc. because it's just damn good fun. Both computer gaming and console gaming have their individual merits, but neither is inherantly better than the other, they're just suited to different kinds of people.

Half a brain, right...

[Kurayamino-X]

Anyone with half a brain can tell you the pros and cons of console vs. PC gaming

Yet all he can manage is mindless PC bashing...
seems to me he just doesn't realise you don't have to play games with every detail setting turned to full.

Contemptible.

[Anonymous Coward]

A "yo momma" argument would have been more convincing. Truly, my 13 year old sister can argue better than this. I wasted 2 minutes of my life reading this and for that I am truly sorry.

Another console kiddie article

[Anonymous Coward]

What an idiot. His harddrive is too slow?! WTF?! ALL hard drives are too slow, as even the fastest drive out will only improve performance by a tiny margin, RAM is the best bang for the buck, followed by hmmm probably GPU then CPU if your CPU isn't too behind the times... But like I mentioned the other is an imbecile as it sounds like he ordered a pre-built system and just took whatever crap the purveyor offered without really knowing much.

Then we go onto a bunch of garbage about this being cheaper?! Oh wait, a console that costs $400 and lasts 2y is a bargain? At best it breaks even, and you're stuck with whatever the capabilties of that console are, and whatever games come out for that console.

Hmmm all games work. Well I've yet to run into a PC game that didn't work, and as for reading the spec, if these morons can't do that how the h3ll do they even know what console they own? Shape recognition?

Games look better. That was true back in the day, but today? Games sure look a helluvalot better to me on a high res monitor that a largish blurryish TV screen. Yes, even hd. (OK, yes most of the newer consoles can be easily hooked up to a monitor and even the older ones with a little effort and the right monitor, but consoles just need to be played with a TV IMO. Hell, some games even count on the blurring and other artifacting of the TV display...)

As it stands now, only the XBOX 360 can accept patches, although I presume that the Wii and pS3 will as well, but hey! I thought that the imbecile claimed that their console games just worked...

Oh wait, they can get patches, but forget about mods. I hope that you like playing that same game, over, and over, and over and over again.

Games being cheaper?! Well, again at best they'll match PC game prices(bargain binned or "classics") but it'll be years longer before they hit that $20-$30 range, meanwhile the PC version will likely have been binned long before or released with a gold version. And if you buy a PS3, hehe, expect to pay $70 for an average game, and I wouldn't be surprised at some of the overhyped games hit $100, at least until Sony realizes that no one is buying games... (or their overpriced console to begin with).

Addons, well, I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here as it would be possible to do with the hd, but I seriously doubt that any addons of any appreciable size will ever show up for consoles, it's just impractical. Oh but they could do it, but then you'd likely need to buy a way overpriced(and slow) larger hd to accomodate said addons/expansions.

Speaking of upgrades? Wait the embedded GPU can't handle next years graphics, oops sorry you can't upgrade it, so you'll have to live with what you've got until the ooo, next gen, ooo console comes out.

Oops, that game could really use some more RAM, sorry you're stuck again with the limited resources provided by your console.

CPU's getting a little shaky, better upgrade it, oh I'm sorry, I forgot you own a console, no new CPU for you, or it'll cost you another $250-$600 for whichever "next gen" system is out next, as next next gen.

Silky smooth games?! Sheesh what a n00b. There is ALWAYS some game(s) that exhibit the dreaded stutter effect, primarily when the console hw is new, or later in it's life when developers expect to be able to push too much out of the console trying to stay somewhat vaguely in parity with newer systems and PCs.

About the only that consoles had going for them were console style games, and games that otherwise seemed better suited to consoles. e.g. arcade game ports, sports games, Japanese style RPGs(they just don't feel right on the PC), some of the simpler FPS, i.e. pretty much any action game, along with a few weird/"innovative" puzzle type games for, well whoever buys those things.

I never cared for M$ consoles as their ENTIRE game library just consists of hijacked PC games, that usually end up better on the PC if they were designed with PC resources in mind v. the more limited resource

The costs are pretty much the same

[MemoryDragon]

The author is an idiot, if you go with a gaming machine you better dont go with one from dell where you cannot exchange anything. The trick is build yourself one from scratch or at least buy one with 100% off the shelve parts in it. Overall the costs of a gaming pc or a console are the same. 1 Console over the year average, is about 300-500$ given the current/next gen consoles. Add to that more costs regarding games, because fewer games hit the bin, and pc games tend to hit the game earlier and for less costs than the console counterparts and you will be around the same amount of money you spend on average games. I also would not go with the highest cost gaming rig on the pc side either, always go for the middle route, most of the times you have to upgrade your graphics card only, and the processor can be upgraded every 3-4 years. A decend middle aged graphics card can do most new games fine, while costing only 200-300 dollars which is pretty much the same costs you spend on the console. The major upgrade every 4-5 years also can be justified and partially put on the tax in most countries... so in the end adding the reduced costs for the games, you will end up pretty much the same, the rest depends on your taste.

Hard drive was too slow?

[soxerus]

The author of this article is clearly a 'user' - they had to upgrade their Hard Drive because it was too slow? Was this back in the 386 days? While we all have computers, we will play games on them. Certain game types play better on certain systems and people will use whatever system they prefer. PC's have their disadvantages - piracy, cheating etc, but they have their advantages, upgradable, games are scalable, almost unlimited titles to choose from etc - if you can't afford a new high end video card, don't buy it, there are millions of other fps games to choose from which will run on your older card. I bought my mid-to-high-range pc over 2 years ago, and it still plays newer games very well, (HL2, CS:S, DOD:S, RO, WoW) XBox live is very impressive, but everyone I know with 360 Live pretty much only plays UNO or Poker, both of which would run on any older pc. This article was obviously an attention grabbing, ad-revenue-generating article, and it probably worked. Maybe with the $5 revenue from the ads, they can now afford a high-end pc.

Are consoles better?

[Scooter]

"No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive. But, limited by those daft controllers they are."

"Control! You must learn Control!"
"But how can I control it with this food mixer that came with my PS/2?!?"
"Use the MOUSE Luke!!" :D

Top 1 reason to buy a PC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for one you can do other things than just play games! Theses days you can't really do much without a PC anyway. Why not just spend a little more and get a good graphics card? I love my keyboard and mouse I wouldn't trade them for anything. On top of that the author doesn't take into consideration that anyone can install a game controller on a PC. And if I where to run my games on a TV at console resolution I wouldn't need a $400 video card! The author also mentions that one good reason to get a console is that some games that are available for consoles only, this argument doesn't hold up, the same is true for PC's, plus the fact you need more than one console if you want many games that arn't all on the same console. The only real advantage is compatibility and the fact that everything is usually garanteed to work.

PC's are better period.

FPS, SIMulations, Racing games

[dindi]

Almost all FPS games are better on PC. Console ones are usually simplified. In fact consoles ruined all tactical shooters: GR2, GRAW, RS3 , now they are just console ports, crappier than the Console version, but even the console version is overly simple over the original titles.

There are no simulations for consoles. Yes there are flying games, but nothing like the older sums the PC had (and do not have too many of nowadays).

I was a console gamer for 2 years, just sold my xbox and ps2 with all the games, and only play on pc.

I guess it also really depends on the games you play.... I think i won't get a PS3 either (small chance is there), the xbox 360 leaves me uninterested, and the WII has no chance either ....

Oh wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Well..

This just summed up the reasons why I have given up on pc gaming and shelled out a considerable amount of money for the 360 on launch.

I mean, I still use my PC all the time and still quite willing to throw money at it, but the effort that is required to get a game up and running its far too much. On the xbox, I get the disc, throw it in the drive an the game is there on the screen, its connected to the network & internet so I can press a couple of buttons and Im playing online without hassle. I would be able to play all kinds of media on the 360 too if it wasnt for Vista being Region1 only at the moment.

my gaming rig..

[Fujisawa Sensei]

My gaming rig of choice has 4 legs, and supports 6 to 8 players depending on player size. And no it does not involve a D20 (TM).

This is not news

[LD gspot]

This is not news. This is someone stating their preferences in a very ignorant manner. Slashdot needs to remove this crap.

UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[tepples]

Of course for most cartridge based systems, documentation has been done to the point where it is possible to build a reader yourself.

Anything that requires soldering is far from mainstream, especially now that newer PCs don't have the LPT ports that a lot of the cart copier plans rely on.

Of course, as I understand the law, it's perfectly legal to download a rom from a website if you own the game anyway.

You misunderstand the law, at least in the United States. Ownership of a lawfully made copy does not confer the right to download another copy. See UMG Recordings v. MP3.com.

But which popular native PC games encourage use of more than one USB controller per machine?

Re:UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[hal2814]

If mp3.com's customers bet a few EE students a case of beer they couldn't get a MAME-compatible ROM dump from two real arcade boards and then lost that bet, then yes. (They are rather trustworthy fellows so I guess they could've cheated but I doubt it.) You are aware that those ROM images didn't come out of thin air, right? Somebody has the ability to read them out and dump them. I personally think it's pretty cool playing with ROMS directly from my boards.

These reasons are great and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but does it run Linux?

Then which platform?

[tepples]

Why do you insist on trying to turn a PC into something it's not?

Because which platform should developers of freeware or shareware target?

Re:Then which platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think it's acceptable to start a question with "Because"? A question is not a reason. A logical, understandable form of what you're trying to say is, "Because I'm having difficulty finding an appropriate platform for my gay ass homebrew Super Smash Bros knockoff. Waaaah."

Your pointless repetition proves one thing, and only one thing over and over and over again... That consoles are an inferior platform for small developers. This is not a reason to be pissed off at PCs. That's like being angry at a toaster for being a shitty place to cook a steak. It is, however, a fine reason to be ticked off at the console market and its business model.

However, there are answers if you bothered to actually look for them, rather than whine, piss and moan on a forum that couldn't care less. For example, you could build or buy a small PC with 4 usb ports and a tv-out. Geez. That was fucking hard. If you're really that stuck on developing for a console, try TorqueX. http://www.garagegames.com/products/torque/x/

Now kindly fuck off.

Open source console

[zIRtrON]

I just ordered a gp2x from japan (i think ;) - here's the page from wikipedia

• I'm looking to use it as a gaming console (but I don't play games at all :P )
• PDA
• Personal Audio Player
• Movie player
• Any other mischief

I have not bought a toy/gadget/peripheral for nearly 6 years other than a laptop, which is really a work item, so i'm looking so geekfully forward to it!

Should arrive on Friday

Expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy assumes that if you get one, you won't get the other. Okay, so the guy likes consoles, and bought one. So then wtf did he write the article with? If you get a console, you have to get a computer anyways, and an extra few hundred dollars (the price of the console) can upgrade your low-end pc to a decent gaming rig that will at least blow the pants off the console's graphics. The belief that consoles are cheaper is completely unfounded, unless you plan on going without a computer for the next four years.

The console is better..

[dr.matrix]

..because it runs nethack, of course! And you can even play over telnet!

Oh, the irony!

[ConallB]

Pity you have to own a PC to read the article explianing why consoles are better! :P

UMG Recordings v. MP3.com

[tepples]

You mean like MP3.com's customers had someone else "do it for them"?

Console, huh?

[johansalk]

Man, what a disappoinment. I came after seeing the RSS feed thinking this was about the console as in the command line interface.

MOD PARENT UP

[trmcdougle]

Damn, my mod points just expired.

THIS is why PC gamers hate consoles, they are causing so much dumbing down/crippling of games even for the PC gamers!

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[dindi]

ooooh, don't even tell me.... I was waiting for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, and really hoped to ge my whole team back, I ended up woth my 4-percon crew of completely retarded AI, and super-intelligent AI opponents that woul;d see you thur smnoke, darkness or dense foliage ....

Hmm, and the saddest thing is that the XBOX 360 port is still better, more complete, and a full experience :(

anyway at least multiplayer is semi decent ...

but alll the games are going this route, i do not even want to buy a game anymore :(

Rhetorical question

[tepples]

Why do you think it's acceptable to start a question with "Because"?

A question of this form is related to an idiom called a rhetorical question. For example, "Because which platform should these developers target?" means "Because it is unclear which platform these developers should target."

Your pointless repetition proves one thing ... That consoles are an inferior platform for small developers. This is not a reason to be pissed off at PCs.

Consoles are inferior for small developers. PCs are inferior for same-screen multiplayer gaming. Do you find it desirable that small developers should be locked out of being able to sell same-screen multiplayer games? If so, why?

For example, you could build or buy a small PC with 4 usb ports and a tv-out.

But how many such PCs exist in the market? Yes, people are willing to pay $20 for a budget game. Are they also willing to pay $600 for a second set-top computer to play it on?

Re:Rhetorical question

[Anonymous Coward]

A question of this form is related to an idiom called a rhetorical question [wikipedia.org]. For example, "Because which platform should these developers target?" means "Because it is unclear which platform these developers should target."

Actually, no. You won't find "because why" constructs commonly in any dialect of english, whether in rhetorical questions or not.

If the second example is what you mean, then type that. The first appears to actually translate as, "Because I'm a flaming retard with a poor understanding of english language constructs."

Regardless, stop fucking asking questions and start looking for answers. Otherwise you're doing nothing but wasting time.

Consoles are inferior for small developers. PCs are inferior for same-screen multiplayer gaming. Do you find it desirable that small developers should be locked out of being able to sell same-screen multiplayer games? If so, why?

Find it desirable? Not particularly, but I'm in no position to make decisions about it. I couldn't really care either way, to be perfectly honest. Do I think people who want to eat steaks should be locked out of cooking them in toasters? Not particularly, but I'm in no position to make decisions about it. I couldn't really care either way, to be perfectly honest.

Again, you present questions, but not even a hint of an answer. Congrats. You've mastered mental masturbation. Would you prefer more open development on consoles? If so, take it up with the console manufacturers and get the fuck out of our hair. Hell, market your own small PC as an open console platform. Run for fucking congress and pass a law that insists consoles be open platforms... Do something other than asking "why why why" over and over like a broken record. It makes you look like the kid who ate paint chips. Are you the kid who ate paint chips?

But how many such PCs exist in the market? Yes, people are willing to pay $20 for a budget game. Are they also willing to pay $600 for a second set-top computer to play it on?

I don't know, and I don't care. Apparently you do. You have set a difficult, if not unreasonable goal for yourself, and instead of either A) Looking for a solution or B) Modifying your goals to match reality, you are C) Whining about how the market isn't bending itself to your will. Can you understand why a large contingent of Slashdot is getting fed up with your bullshit?

Do you think Dodge drivers should be barred from flying their cars over the Atlantic? If so, why?

...

WHY ARE YOU HOLDING DODGE DRIVERS BACK!?

Re:Rhetorical question

[tepples]

instead of either A) Looking for a solution or B) Modifying your goals to match reality

What should my goals be?

Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sick of CONSOLE snobs bragging about their "superior" gaming rigs?" - Fixed.

Seriously, keep opinion out. This is a news site, not some BS "I think consoles are better :snort:" site.
PC's and Consoles are here to stay. Get over it, you little whiney highschoolers.

jesus...

only idiots will take a console over a pc

[wewt]

First of all consoles are no longer cheaper then PC's if you want the same experience. Enjoy your 640x480 resolution unless you want to dish out the couple k for a decent HDD tv on top of your console. I rather save the extra money and get twice the graphics output not only that but get this I CAN UPGRADE MY BOX WITH NON PROPRIETARY PARTS. Also have fun never being able to play modded games or anything of the like on a console. Cstrike the most widely played game to this day is guess what A MOD. And to all of you Halo idiots hop on cstrike on a pc the games are quicker and much, much more tactful with a mouse and keyboard then your stupid controller can and will ever be. Sorry consoles are just a poor man's gaming box have fun with your idiot boxes while I enjoy games like WoW, Half-life with full modded games, etc

Lots of official emulation

[tepples]

That's pretty much my overarching question: given that (as far as I know, anyway) there are no real technical hurdles to such things, why do they not exist?

It might have something to do with a dedicated set-top gaming PC being several times more expensive than a console.

I for one wonder why the console makers have never come up with official emulators.

At least Sega has, for its Sonic rereleases. Konami has the Castlevania and Contra collection for PC, which runs the NES games in emulation. Midway's Arcade Treasures and Namco's Namco Museum series for PC (and other platforms) are also emulators. Jaleco's GBA rereleases of NES games even use a customized version of PocketNES.

A lot of consoles had proprietary storage media. For your Super NES and Dreamcast examples, a cart copier or GD-ROM drive for PC might cost more than a refurbished console. And companies that still make consoles do re-release games on their own newer platforms: Nintendo runs NES games in emulation on GBA. But Nintendo doesn't want to be seen supporting Microsoft and the ROM pirates when it can sell its own games on its own platform.