Not what I said. I think a lot of PC gamers are so resentful of the consoles that they don't even consider them, when they should. Especially the 360, since a lot of traditional PC developers are migrating to it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Golden Age of PC Gaming? & PC vs Xbox 360
- Thread starter impactdax
- Start date
Not what I said. I think a lot of PC gamers are so resentful of the consoles that they don't even consider them, when they should. Especially the 360, since a lot of traditional PC developers are migrating to it.
Simpson5774
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,937
IMO PC's are the ultimate gaming experence, Ive got a mouse and keyboard, ive got two monitors (old compaq 17 inch CRTs which are still kickin), and no console can match it.
Ive been playing games on the pc / online since quake 2, and ive acquired a taste for it. The gaming is more intense, you get more into it, and the games are typically better, and the mouse is a much better gaming device than a joypad, its just makes more sense to me.
But it sucks, all the good games that would be better on the PC aren't even being ported to the pc, let alone the ones that do usually suck (Rainbow six vegas as an example), I remember rainbow six, as the premiere FPS game when it came out, then there was rainbow six RS, and lets not forget nato mod, and now its been reduced to another console money maker, which in turn has effectively ruined that game.
Now all of these big game makers wont touch PCs with a 10 foot pole, because creating a game for it takes more man hours, and less people will buy it, and they can't sign big contracts for exclusivity, or exclusive downloadable content (another thing that pisses me off).
I want to see more games like stalker, and crysis and HL2, games that competly seperate PCs from consoles, games that take years to develop because PC gamers demand that kind of quality, a quality which is more and more being lost on console games (look how the need for speed series is turning out).
Consoles are forever killing the experience that is gaming and are selling out, slowly but surely, I mean why should I have to pay money to play games online, I expect that to be included with every game I buy (and pretty much every pc game has free online play), why should I have to pay for game mods and improvements, That should be included with the price of the game, no questions asked and no strings attached.
I will however buy a PS3 solely for GT5 and GTA4, the two games that still make consoles an option for me.
So what if it costs more to keep a PC current, thats part of the luxury in it.
Ive been playing games on the pc / online since quake 2, and ive acquired a taste for it. The gaming is more intense, you get more into it, and the games are typically better, and the mouse is a much better gaming device than a joypad, its just makes more sense to me.
But it sucks, all the good games that would be better on the PC aren't even being ported to the pc, let alone the ones that do usually suck (Rainbow six vegas as an example), I remember rainbow six, as the premiere FPS game when it came out, then there was rainbow six RS, and lets not forget nato mod, and now its been reduced to another console money maker, which in turn has effectively ruined that game.
Now all of these big game makers wont touch PCs with a 10 foot pole, because creating a game for it takes more man hours, and less people will buy it, and they can't sign big contracts for exclusivity, or exclusive downloadable content (another thing that pisses me off).
I want to see more games like stalker, and crysis and HL2, games that competly seperate PCs from consoles, games that take years to develop because PC gamers demand that kind of quality, a quality which is more and more being lost on console games (look how the need for speed series is turning out).
Consoles are forever killing the experience that is gaming and are selling out, slowly but surely, I mean why should I have to pay money to play games online, I expect that to be included with every game I buy (and pretty much every pc game has free online play), why should I have to pay for game mods and improvements, That should be included with the price of the game, no questions asked and no strings attached.
I will however buy a PS3 solely for GT5 and GTA4, the two games that still make consoles an option for me.
So what if it costs more to keep a PC current, thats part of the luxury in it.
Your own quote of yourself doesn't match up. You didn't say anything about resentful. You said you are in denial if you don't consider an Xbox.
Assassins creed is neither first nor exclusive. It is out on PC at the same time. You have one exclusive there of interest (Mass Effect). Buying a machine for a single game doesn't make much sense. Also history shows Bioware games migrate with time (KOTOR, Jade Empire) and Bioware ports are well executed, with the PC version running smoothly with more content.
I can definitely wait for the port. I am more interested in Bioware's Dragon Age than Mass effect.
You gotta remember that whenever a big developer migrates to the mass market, they're often replaced by a small developer with innovative ideas - I don't see a net loss to the consoles. Sure the Rainbow Six name may no longer mean hardcore, but there are alternatives - look at mods like Insurgency, or games like Combat Mission. You never got the best games from the huge EA developers, they came from the little guy. And EA can always buy a developer to get a brand name, but they can't keep the core braintrust from jumping ship to start a new small company.
Thanks for illustrating my point. PC gamers will readily buy a $600 video card, or spend thousands on a new PC, to play one game - once it was Doom, later Diablo, Halflife, last year Oblivion, this year it's Crysis.
But closed minded PC gamers like you wouldn't even consider buying a 360 for one game. You don't seem to understand the word 'consider' - look it up.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,778
Sorry hard drive performance has minimal impact on gaming performance as long as it's a 7200rpm drive. Motherboards also have a minimal impact on performance. Especially since they all for the most part use the same chipset. Last but not least, 90% of pc's now have at least 1GB of ram, and yes, even an x2 is better than xenon performance wise. You didn't own shit, you got rick rolled, Pz baddie. gb2playing360.
In fact, you can build an x1950xt/2GB ram/ and x2 setup for less than $500. And that will play oblivion on high settings at 1280x720 (which is the res the 360 uses right?) but with higher quality textures. Oh shit, sub $500, that's xbox 360 price territory. Not to mention you get much more usability out of a pc. The 360 has it's niche as does the pc. You're trying to argue that for the money the 360 pumps out better graphics than a pc. Whereas I just demonstrated that for sub $500 you can build a pc that outdoes a 360 in horsepower. When the 360 first came out devs were knocking xenon saying even the current high end a64's and PD's were outperforming it. Sad =/
x2 4000+ $70
am2 motherboard $50
2GB ram $70
x1950xt $160
160GB hard drive $45
xfinity 500 $45
coolermaster mystique $40
$480!! Exactly the same price as a 360 elite =D
You have to stop mixing up PC hobbyists who like to stay on the leading edge with your average PC gamer. Go visit the steam survey pages. Maybe 1% of PC gamers have a $600 graphics card. Stop with the "spend thousands to play a game" nonsense. A sub $1000 will play any game fine and you know it. Some people just like to have the best that is some else entirely.
So now I am close minded because I won't buy a 360 for one game? I would think that sane.
Also learn how sentences work when you say someone is 'in denial" for not considering an Xbox, that makes it a lot stronger than merely saying PC gamers should consider an Xbox.
BTW I am sure we all considered it. I heard about the Xbox/PS3/Wii, thought about them and dismissed them. Thus it was considered. Or did you really mean something stronger than consider?
Unfortunately on PCs if you want to game widescreen, you're pretty much forced into 1680 x 1050 res - and you can't run 1280 x 720 on most games - even if you could it would look terrible on an LCD monitor.
There's an easy solution - it's the 8800GTS, but it's not that cheap.
If you dismissed them out of hand, you didn't really consider it, obviously. Yet again you illustrate my point, thanks.
And the casual gamers are already migrating to the consoles, my point is meant for the stubborn "death before console" PC gamers.
Where do you get this "Death before Console" thing? It is much like your "Spend Thousands of dollars on PC" to play a game nonsense. Are you a Microsoft employee becoming unhinged by the multi-billion losses of the gaming division affecting your shares? You seem rather rabid about the whole thing.
What qualifies as "really consider it" to you. I have a viable gaming platform, with access to more games than I will ever have time to play. Why exactly do I need another gaming platform? For one more game, sooner? I think you need to do better than that.
When you migrate to the PC, you open up options.
Want to play a first-person shooter? You have a mouse and a keyboard already. Alternatively, buy a joystick. Add other fancy little controllers on the market if you'd like. Alternatively, buy a joypad. Hell, buy an X360 joypad, if that's what you fancy.
Want to play a racing sim? Go out and buy a wheel/pedal set. Spend $100...or spend upwards of $3000 (if you really wish). Alternatively, buy a joypad.
Want to play a flight sim? Go out and buy a joystick. $40 to $200 or so. Then consider adding a throttle, pedals, IR-tracking devices and so on. Alternatively, buy a joypad.
Your control options with the X360 are pretty slim. The number of control options with a PC? "Immense" is a fitting word.
It's been 'considered'. And after due consideration it's been noted that consoles lock you into a spiraling money pit. I'll stick to PC gaming and leave consoles to those willing to spend cash on them. BTW, how much are they charging for the Xbox 360 hard drive? And how much can you get a hard disk for a PC for? Video cards alone aren't the only advantage PCs have over consoles...even if the video cards are expensive. Expensive video cards give resolutions consoles will never reach. Not because they're incapable of doing so but because developers are forced to the lowest common denominators.
How much did it cost PC gamers to buy a PC just to play one game - Doom or Diablo? That's right, thousands of dollars. I know, cause I bought one. That's what I was referring to, don't confuse me with other posters.
It's simple English - if you dismiss something (your words), it means you didn't consider it. Fine, that's your choice - just don't speak for all PC gamers, most of whom aren't as close minded.
As even you said, the 360 is mostly PC style games. So anyone who likes that style of game should have an open mind and consider it.
If you're looking to get a high end gaming machine sure...thousands of dollars. There are plenty of PCs that will play decent games with decent performance for under that amount and probably pretty close to Xbox prices.
Before Doom 3 was released (about 1 month before) it costed me $800 for my new PC, which played Doom 3 completely maxed. What else did I get to play though...? Half Life 2, Far Cry, CS:S, DoD:S, UT 2k4, Pain Killer, Chronicles Of Riddick, Dawn of War, etc etc. World of Warcraft even came out that year. I'm pretty sure my $800 went a long way. What did consoles get in 2004 compared to PC?
The PC is a great platform, no doubt. Unfortunately, a lot of PC developers are moving to the 360, some not by choice (Halo & Forza for example). If I want to drive production cars, like my real life car - which PC game should I buy?
In an ideal world, Forza 2 or Halo 3 or GT5 would be available on PC, but that's not reality. Might as well go with the flow.
I'm not talking about PCs today, i was saying PC gamers have in the past spent thousands to play one game - Doom & Diablo were two examples. I don't know why the reading impaired keep bringing up Doom 3 or today's cheap PCs - confusing me with another poster I guess.
Now you are going back in time? I played Doom and Diablo and I never payed thousands of dollars for a PC. I have owned several PCs since I gave up on my Amiga and moved to the PC in the 486 days. My PCs were usually around ~$1500 and that is getting cheaper as time goes by.
To consider implies a choice, to consider and reject is still to consider and again, being more PC like in its games might be a reason to choose and Xbox if you were looking to replace the PC for gaming. But if you want to augment the PC gaming, I think having something more different (PS3/Wii) makes more sense. Can you consider that?
There aren't any PC racing sims that are as broadly-encompassing as Gran Turismo or Forza (featuring both production cars and racing cars). PC racing sims tend to stick into niches, as the intended buyers are also part of a niche. I think the main reason the two aforementioned games are so successful is because of the customization options and the relatively simplistic physics models -- they certainly appeal to console gamers who aren't looking for tremendous depth.
If you want to play the type of game you described, you probably want a console. But I think you're attempting to sidestep my point by offering a highly narrow "but what if" scenario. I didn't say anything about the sub-genres or specific games, just about controller options and the genres in which they are typically used.
You're right, screw all this. What we need to do is HAVE IT ALL!
XBOX 360 + PS3 + 8800 Ultra SLI PC all hooked up to a 42" 1080p LCD HDTV...*drool*...
You're right, though, on a purely gaming perspective, an XBOX 360 is much more cost-effective in terms of providing a nice gaming experience than a PC for the average person. For example, your average $1,000 retail PC couldn't even come close to an XBOX 360; those systems are usually loaded with integrated or low-end cards. Whereas you could get an XBOX 360 for, say, $400 and then buy a Dell dual-core with 2GB RAM and integrated graphics and a 17"/19" LCD monitor for $450 (they have those deals all the time).
Of course, you could build a $1,000 PC that would beat an XBOX 360. And a lot of PC gamers like tweaking with both games and their PC, so we're not paying for just a PC - we're paying for a bigger e-Penis. And then there are games for either platform that you can't get...
I don't have a PS3, but I do have everything plugged into my 42" 1080p LCD.
Nope, the reason you don't have production cars in PC games has nothing to do with physics or niche markets, and everything to do with manufacturer licenses, which are very expensive, so only a Sony or Microsoft can afford it. Which is the biggest advantage the consoles have - developer focus and big budgets. (on the downside they tend not to get the small developer).
And Forza 2's physics model is hardly simplistic, it's right up there with a GTR2, if not better. I've driven on various road courses in real life myself, and the Le Mans drivers who tried Forza 2 gave it the highest praise.
Controller options are great on the PC - but the sim market seems to be dying out - flight sims, where are they? I have a Momo leather wheel for my PC, but never use it - cause it's a pain, and doesn't feel like the real thing anyway.
Well, I only played the original Forza, and I was not impressed by the realism factor - or perhaps the lack thereof. I'll have to take a look at Forza 2 at some point if the model is as good as you say. Naturally, I was tremendously disappointed with GT3/GT4.
In any case, you're right about the dying PC sim market. I think that, at some point, realistic flight simulators might vanish entirely (save for the Flight Simulator series, of course). The racing sim world has taken something of an interesting turn, of course, now that many simulators are being developed by the hardcore sim communities and being distributed freely or independently.
Of course, you also have to consider how simulators don't need to evolve much further, which could be one explanation for the lack of any new games. I don't believe most simmers are nearly concerned with the shader model used, or the the number of polygons used in models, as most mainstream gamers. As long as it's a good simulator, I don't think people that are buying higher-end controllers and so on are that concerned with having new titles that would only really serve to increase visual and audio fidelity over previous titles.
Regardless, I only intended to establish the case for the PC's wide variety of control options. It'd be great if we had more control options for use with consoles, but the lack of demand for such options has been the result of a lack of more serious console titles (with exceptions, of course). Console gamers are also not as interested in sinking a fair deal of money into accessory hardware as are PC gamers, so certain genres have remained the forte of the PC pretty much by default.
I think the bottom line is that there's a place for PCs and a place for consoles. They serve different purposes, though those purposes can certainly overlap in many cases. The games I play are best played on a PC, with a keyboard and a mouse, so naturally I still gravitate toward the PC as my platform of choice. I snagged a Gamecube because it offers something very different than what's available on the PC (and on the other PC-like consoles), so that sort of serves to fill the genre gaps that the PC doesn't hit, or doesn't hit well.
In any case, you're right about the dying PC sim market. I think that, at some point, realistic flight simulators might vanish entirely (save for the Flight Simulator series, of course). The racing sim world has taken something of an interesting turn, of course, now that many simulators are being developed by the hardcore sim communities and being distributed freely or independently.
Of course, you also have to consider how simulators don't need to evolve much further, which could be one explanation for the lack of any new games. I don't believe most simmers are nearly concerned with the shader model used, or the the number of polygons used in models, as most mainstream gamers. As long as it's a good simulator, I don't think people that are buying higher-end controllers and so on are that concerned with having new titles that would only really serve to increase visual and audio fidelity over previous titles.
Regardless, I only intended to establish the case for the PC's wide variety of control options. It'd be great if we had more control options for use with consoles, but the lack of demand for such options has been the result of a lack of more serious console titles (with exceptions, of course). Console gamers are also not as interested in sinking a fair deal of money into accessory hardware as are PC gamers, so certain genres have remained the forte of the PC pretty much by default.
I think the bottom line is that there's a place for PCs and a place for consoles. They serve different purposes, though those purposes can certainly overlap in many cases. The games I play are best played on a PC, with a keyboard and a mouse, so naturally I still gravitate toward the PC as my platform of choice. I snagged a Gamecube because it offers something very different than what's available on the PC (and on the other PC-like consoles), so that sort of serves to fill the genre gaps that the PC doesn't hit, or doesn't hit well.
Between LO:MAC and IL-2: 1946 for combat and Flight Simulator X, Orbiter (Free!), FlightGear (Free!), and X-Plane, you'll probably find something you want.
What the flight simulator and even action-gaming PC market could really use is another Microsoft Force Feedback joystick, one with a big, heavy base...there are only two left on the market, one by Saitek and the Logitech Force 3D Pro, and they are teh suck when compared to even the original Microsoft Force Feedback Pro, which I have but can't use because I no longer have a game port, ha ha...
Well all true. But you brought up this context as far as buying games. You did not bring it up as getting games. My point was I don't have to spend 60 bucks to play say GOW. I can wait a few weeks and rent it in the mail for a console. But on a PC I would have to buy it out right as rental's just do not exist in that space.
Now your commit about free games opens up a different area. One which tips the scales way in favor of the PC side.
As others pointed out, I think better controls is all subjective. I don't think I would ever be able to get use to playing FPS on the consoles. However after almost 14 months of owning a 360 I am no longer walking around with my gun pointed at the floor/ceiling
However after playing many racing games and sports games on both, consoles just fit those better for controls. To each their own...As others pointed out, I think better controls is all subjective. I don't think I would ever be able to get use to playing FPS on the consoles. However after almost 14 months of owning a 360 I am no longer walking around with my gun pointed at the floor/ceiling
Yeah, I find Rainbow Six Vegas or Halo perfectly playable and fun w/ a controller. In fact one thing I like about Vegas on 360 vs Call of Duty 2 on PC is it feels more like combat, since I can't just sit there and plink 15 enemies in 8 seconds w/ super accuracy using a mouse - it's just way too accurate and doesn't feel like combat. You can't move your rifle around in real life with the accuracy and speed of a mouse. Having to shoot people w/ the controller adds a little tension.
They each have their place - having said that, most shooters I still prefer on the PC, unless they have a good split screen coop or multiplayer mode. It feels more intimate too, maybe cause my monitor is 18 inches away instead of 8-10 feet.