As far as I am concerned, the "you get what you pay for" principle applies here.
I have both a good gaming PC and a 360, and since I like playing games from the couch they should compete with each other for that sacred spot near my TV set. The end result: my 360 remains buried underneath a book pile in the corner of my living room for, what now?, six months?
Since I completed Gears of War and Dead Rising, I found out that every single game simply looks prettier on my PC, which I got for ~$1200. I manage to run most games in full 1080p resolution on that thing, with nearly everything maxed out.
So, are gaming PCs more expensive? Yes, they are. Are they worth paying the extra? Absolutely.
The controls and basic interface are familiar, there's no worries about your particular brand of hardware working with the game, the DRM doesn't often bite you, etc. With the exception of a few games that really do play better with mouse and keyboard, consoles have PCs beat. And they are cheaper. Even if you buy them all. Price should most definitely be NOT the only factor that determines your choice of a gaming platform, at least not if you consider gaming your hobby.
As far a I am personally concerned, I won't be leaving PC gaming as long as gaming-oriented hardware continues to be released for the PC.
A couple years ago, I'd have laughed in your face if you said I'd prefer console gaming now. But with power of the XBox 360 (and PS3, theoretically... wish they'd go ahead and make a good game for it) and the innovative interface of the Wii, I rarely game on the PC now. The previous generation, it was the "power of the PS2!". Guess what, the cycle repeats each time. PCs had to catch up to the PS2 for a few years back then, this time, PCs outperformed the 360 right off the bat. Every release simply looks prettier, and plays better on the PC, and starting with Crysis the PC will start getting unique experiences that are impossible to replicate on the current generation of consoles, simply due to their technical limitations. Myself, I've played, what, three retail titles and a couple of XBLA releases on my 360 since I bought it? I play PC games daily, and yet my 360 is just sitting there collecting dust since I got through Castlevania. My gaming rig has overtaken the console's place near the TV so that I can comfortably play PC games from a couch.
Also, just to say, while I am not denying that Wii's controls are unique to the platform, PC modders have been hard at work adapting the Wiimote for use in PC games. We already can see some of the results, like the Half Life 2 Wiimote Mod which just went into public beta stage. And over time, we'll be seeing more and more exciting stuff like that which blends the two platforms' strengths together.
Mods remaining free is crucial. Screw Microsoft and their business sense. Mods are about the only factor that keeps many old games alive to this day. When I beat a console game, I pretty much throw it away and forget about it. When I beat a PC game, I can always look forward to replaying it in a couple of years with all the mods installed, which grants me a completely new gameplay experience.
If the mod tools really do go away, I will be very, very sorely disappointed.
What we really need are patches that check the validity of a given CD-key at installation.
I think Stardock uses a similar model for their products and it *does* help.
I seriously don't know what the hell are you talking about here: personally, I haven't seen a single person who uses hacks/bots/or whatever in the last, maybe, 4 years? Noone wants to risk getting a VAC ban, a CD-key ban, or a statwipe nowadays for a couple of extra frags, believe me.
"The new consoles come out, everyone's hooked onto them and the PC games die down. A year or two down the road PCs come out ahead, or at least on par again."
This gen, it took PCs just six months to reestablish technological dominance.
And that amount of time goes down with every new generation.
All this leads me to believe that this time around, the next generation of consoles(XBox 720/whatever, PS4) will be technically obsolete right at release and they'll just be proprietary mid-end PCs, and nothing else.
Why is it dumb? I think it's the number one reason why people buy consoles over PC gaming. It is only the number one reason is because there is a lot of casual gamers out there. For them, yes, the price and ease of use is important. For the "hardcore" gamer, for whom gaming is the primary form of recreation, the quality of the experience is the main deciding factor.
Yes that number came from my a**, but looking at the lists of games that came out and removing those reviewed with scores below 5.0/10 and the downloadable only games [with lower production value], i'm forced to come at that conclusion. In fact i've gotten the conclusion that the number of PC games is way less than for any other gaming platforms a LONG time ago. ...
Let's take the X360 as an example:
According to 2006 releases lists on http://www.gamerankings.com/: The X360 has 41 titles with ratings higher than 75%. Out of these about 7 are XBox Live Arcade titles and/or PC ports from a year ago. Now, the PC has 53 titles with ratings higher than 75% And that's considering that Gamerankings do not keep track of the many various indie PC games released. Plus, according to the general consensus, 2006 wasn't really a good year for PC gaming-and 2007 is expected to be much better.
On consoles, Splinter Cell: Double Agent is an old title. Tons of games have came out since it was released (at the same time as the PC version), it's actually buried behind the other newer titles.... this was my personal opinion and partial explanation of why i don't play PC games anymore. Sorry, but this is pure BS. I do have an X360, and guess what: I've used it to play exactly four titles since I bought it: GoW, Dead Rising, Lost Planet and Viva Pinata. Well, that and a couple of Live Arcade titles. All the others have been released for the PC. On the PS2, I've played 5 titles last year which I won't bother to list. As you might have guessed, I don't have much intrest for racing/sports and fighting games. So, in fact, last year, I've seen more releases for the PC as a platform than for either console.
Also, just to note, Double Agent for the PC was released a month after the X360 release.
A PC gaming rig cost more than a console. Period. Noone is arguing with that. But basing your selection of gaming platforms exclusively on cost efficiency is, well, dumb.
Well, the thing is: if people are willing to spend lots of money on HDTVs to get higher image clarity, why not spend similar amounts on their gaming system for a similar increase in graphics quality?
Personally, I'm using a PC attached to a HDTV set as my primary gaming platform.
Yes, a PS3 outperforms a similarly priced PC. But most sane PC gamers *upgrade* their gaming rigs, not buy new ones. So, instead of getting a PS3, I bought myself a GF8800 GTX for the same $600 and installed it into my year old gaming rig, which will now easily outperform the PS3.
I'm not sure I see any PC games in the lists in the article, actually. As I understand, NPD will make a serperate press release for that.
All the information I can add on this is that in the UK, ELSPA announced that the PC game market increased its sales by 7% from last year, stopping the constant decline of the past years.
For now, they *don't* have anything to gain from the death of PC gaming.
Because in the next couple of years, the only people who will be actually buying Vista are PC gamers. Everyone else seems to be fine with Windows XP.
Right, a question for you then: why do multiplatform games like Prey, Oblivion and FEAR look better on a high end PC than they do on the X360? Just look around the web for screencap comparisons.
I'll be as bold as to state that X360's hardware being better than the hardware available for the PC is actually a misconception.
I don't want game developers deciding when I should upgrade my PC.
Oh, but *I* do! PCs are spearheading all the hardware innovation nowadays. I don't want to wait for 5-10 years between major advancements in graphics as with consoles, when on PCs the quality of visuals increases with every year if you keep upgrading. I don't want to wait when one of the console makers decides it's time for another change of hardware, neither do I want to let them decide for me which hardware do I want in my platform, when the decisions they make are based on cost effectiveness and nothing else. Personally, I'd like to retain control over my gaming experience.
Oh really. I don't see console gamers comparing their 3DMark scores or whatever FPS of the moment frame rates for their videocards I also notice that a certain PC gaming magazine said the PC version of a game was better simply because it ran at a higher resolution. And then in an editorial they complained that gameplay was getting the shrift compared to graphics.
...The reason why console gamers don't compare their benchmarks is simply because every single console of a certain brand has the same hardware inside, if you didn't know somehow. There is simply nothing to compare console benchmarks to. Benchmarking video cards is done either by hardware enthusiasts-who overclock stuff as their hobby, or by magazines which simply inform the buyer which hardware is really worth its price. Secondly, since gameplay rarely varies between platforms, of course the version with the best graphics should be the preferred one.
I honestly don't know why I spent time typing out this, while it should be obvious.
"The 360 has 3 cores, 48 unified pipelines, 512 megs of GDDR3 memory and an insane bus speed between them. Hardly "mid range" by any PC standards considering PC's are still fighting to catch up."
Incorrect, the Radeon X1900 series were able to outperform the X360 from the time of their release-the X360's Xenos can keep up with it due to its peculiar architecture and the aforementioned memory bandwidth, but in terms of raw power, the X1900 are better. Also, don't forget to mention the facts that the "512 megs" of memory are shared between the GPU and CPU, and the CPU that the X360 has is an in-order CPU, which can be trumped by any out-of-order CPU, if special optimization is not done to the game code.
I dislike the concept of achievements. I already have to keep my WoW character in top shape, now I have to watch after my gamerscore as well?!
Seriously though, achievements have never affected the way I play games: first, single player once, then multiplayer if present, until I get bored, then forget and move on to next game.
A 2006 PC game with higher projected sales than a console blockbuster hit:
(and no, it is not Sims or somesuch)
http://www.thesimexchange.com/stock.php?id=32
Comparison:
http://www.thesimexchange.com/stock.php?id=2
Personally I don't think the PC game market is dying-in fact we may see a resurgence in PC game sales next year. And as for myself, the PC will always remain my favorite gaming platform.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I am concerned, the "you get what you pay for" principle applies here. I have both a good gaming PC and a 360, and since I like playing games from the couch they should compete with each other for that sacred spot near my TV set. The end result: my 360 remains buried underneath a book pile in the corner of my living room for, what now?, six months? Since I completed Gears of War and Dead Rising, I found out that every single game simply looks prettier on my PC, which I got for ~$1200. I manage to run most games in full 1080p resolution on that thing, with nearly everything maxed out. So, are gaming PCs more expensive? Yes, they are. Are they worth paying the extra? Absolutely.
Mods remaining free is crucial. Screw Microsoft and their business sense. Mods are about the only factor that keeps many old games alive to this day. When I beat a console game, I pretty much throw it away and forget about it. When I beat a PC game, I can always look forward to replaying it in a couple of years with all the mods installed, which grants me a completely new gameplay experience. If the mod tools really do go away, I will be very, very sorely disappointed.
What we really need are patches that check the validity of a given CD-key at installation. I think Stardock uses a similar model for their products and it *does* help.
Sorry, but I'll take your presumed "terribleness" of PC gaming over the sterile, fully proprietary console gaming.
I seriously don't know what the hell are you talking about here: personally, I haven't seen a single person who uses hacks/bots/or whatever in the last, maybe, 4 years?
Noone wants to risk getting a VAC ban, a CD-key ban, or a statwipe nowadays for a couple of extra frags, believe me.
"The new consoles come out, everyone's hooked onto them and the PC games die down. A year or two down the road PCs come out ahead, or at least on par again." This gen, it took PCs just six months to reestablish technological dominance. And that amount of time goes down with every new generation. All this leads me to believe that this time around, the next generation of consoles(XBox 720/whatever, PS4) will be technically obsolete right at release and they'll just be proprietary mid-end PCs, and nothing else.
Well, the thing is: if people are willing to spend lots of money on HDTVs to get higher image clarity, why not spend similar amounts on their gaming system for a similar increase in graphics quality? Personally, I'm using a PC attached to a HDTV set as my primary gaming platform.
Yes, a PS3 outperforms a similarly priced PC. But most sane PC gamers *upgrade* their gaming rigs, not buy new ones. So, instead of getting a PS3, I bought myself a GF8800 GTX for the same $600 and installed it into my year old gaming rig, which will now easily outperform the PS3.
A cup or two of green tea, a sandwich and some fruit. It's healthy!
For now, they *don't* have anything to gain from the death of PC gaming. Because in the next couple of years, the only people who will be actually buying Vista are PC gamers. Everyone else seems to be fine with Windows XP.
Right, a question for you then: why do multiplatform games like Prey, Oblivion and FEAR look better on a high end PC than they do on the X360? Just look around the web for screencap comparisons. I'll be as bold as to state that X360's hardware being better than the hardware available for the PC is actually a misconception.
I don't want game developers deciding when I should upgrade my PC.
Oh, but *I* do! PCs are spearheading all the hardware innovation nowadays. I don't want to wait for 5-10 years between major advancements in graphics as with consoles, when on PCs the quality of visuals increases with every year if you keep upgrading. I don't want to wait when one of the console makers decides it's time for another change of hardware, neither do I want to let them decide for me which hardware do I want in my platform, when the decisions they make are based on cost effectiveness and nothing else. Personally, I'd like to retain control over my gaming experience.Oh really. I don't see console gamers comparing their 3DMark scores or whatever FPS of the moment frame rates for their videocards I also notice that a certain PC gaming magazine said the PC version of a game was better simply because it ran at a higher resolution. And then in an editorial they complained that gameplay was getting the shrift compared to graphics.
...The reason why console gamers don't compare their benchmarks is simply because every single console of a certain brand has the same hardware inside, if you didn't know somehow. There is simply nothing to compare console benchmarks to. Benchmarking video cards is done either by hardware enthusiasts-who overclock stuff as their hobby, or by magazines which simply inform the buyer which hardware is really worth its price. Secondly, since gameplay rarely varies between platforms, of course the version with the best graphics should be the preferred one. I honestly don't know why I spent time typing out this, while it should be obvious."The 360 has 3 cores, 48 unified pipelines, 512 megs of GDDR3 memory and an insane bus speed between them. Hardly "mid range" by any PC standards considering PC's are still fighting to catch up." Incorrect, the Radeon X1900 series were able to outperform the X360 from the time of their release-the X360's Xenos can keep up with it due to its peculiar architecture and the aforementioned memory bandwidth, but in terms of raw power, the X1900 are better. Also, don't forget to mention the facts that the "512 megs" of memory are shared between the GPU and CPU, and the CPU that the X360 has is an in-order CPU, which can be trumped by any out-of-order CPU, if special optimization is not done to the game code.
I dislike the concept of achievements. I already have to keep my WoW character in top shape, now I have to watch after my gamerscore as well?! Seriously though, achievements have never affected the way I play games: first, single player once, then multiplayer if present, until I get bored, then forget and move on to next game.
http://www.gamesforwindows.com/games/CompanyOfHero es/gamesDetail.aspx
I haven't noticed that it supports a gamepad when I played it.
Let me reiterate: only games that support gamepads at all have to have 360 controller compatibility.
A 2006 PC game with higher projected sales than a console blockbuster hit: (and no, it is not Sims or somesuch) http://www.thesimexchange.com/stock.php?id=32 Comparison: http://www.thesimexchange.com/stock.php?id=2 Personally I don't think the PC game market is dying-in fact we may see a resurgence in PC game sales next year. And as for myself, the PC will always remain my favorite gaming platform.