POLL: Pc vs console

Remove all ads!

This is true but takes down the price advantage a console has over a pc. To play online with a console, IIRC, you need to pay extra fees, unlike with a pc, where you just need your connection to the internet (unless you play any of those MMO games). Besides, the price advantage a console has over pc is very arguable, since the pc itself might cost alot more, but the games themselves cost almost 25 % less. And if you are like me and want to give the companies the money they deserve buy purchasing legal copies of the games, that really adds up to the point where it indeed becomes cheaper to be a pc owner.

But I'm surprised the true advantage of pcgames is never mentioned. Custom content. This makes the pc-based games have a much longer lifetime than consolebased ones. Especially since more and more recent titles include the tools to create that custom content, even to the point where you can almost change the gamerules themselves (ie NWN). This is what truly makes the pcs stand out, not only customisation on hardware level (which is bothersome if you don't have the required knowledge) but also on gamelevel itself, which is more userfriendly.

To resume my viewpoint: pc is much more freedom (with all the negative consequences of bringing more responsibility with it), while consoles are much more userfriendly (at the cost of being bound to what is supplied to you by the industry, which means you have to tailor your wishes to the supply instead of adapting the supplied to your wishes).

 

Whoaaa! According to this pool, PC is by far the best! To me, well, if nothing else, you cant make homework on console... Or can you? (oh yea and internet is still not found on console, Xbox maybe?)

 

Emulators are cool. You get the play the games U used to own, knowing that the experience on itself, like with Ocarina of Time, like ejsmith says, doesn't come close to 'the real thing', on console. It gives you that special feeling. Therefore pc is as important as consoles, letting me play games that never even got released in Europe. (Ogre Battle 64 & Harvest Moon 64), and introducing me to Final Fantasy V on SNES)

Anywayzz, they are 2 completely different mediums if you bring into play the aspect of modding, media and other stuff a computer can do. So basically, they go side by side. It all depends on personal preference.

 

Actually, emulators are often a better option than the original console (anyone remembering the pain of cleaning cartridges?) -even though I would buy a original one of pure nostalgia reasons. Ironically, even though several games were originally intended for a console, the ultimately end up for PC.

As to the emulators and ROMs, it's not the emulator that is illegal, but ROM files of games you do not own. Seriously, I have over 50 ROMs and I own a physical copy of every and each one -so there is nothing illegal in it. You just presume that everyone downloading ROMs is guilty before charged.

Purchace rewards, true, but what if there are a lot of similar looking games and you can afford to buy only one, or buying them all would cost some ûber amounts of cash? As a consumer, you lose. Okay, the companies have to make money so new games can keep rolling out, but enforcing the same principle to even three years old games is just ridicilous. They have the "reward" people are willing to pay, and still they withold the product when they know they cannot earn anything with it -or even improve it.

So which one in this case would be the greedy one? The company or the consumer?

 

Point taken; I didn't make it clear that it IS legal to download ROMS that you own the actual game for, but I think you'll agree that most people don't own the games that they download ROMS for, as many are hard to find (I'm thinking ROMS like Secret of Mana) or games that were never released in the US (like the fan-translated Secret of Mana 2).

Many PC games are also ported to consoles, but in the land of video games, it's who gets the game first that's most important, not who gets it eventually. If I see a particular system getting the games I most want to play earliest, I'll want to buy that system most.

I think you COULD surf the net on a Dreamcast (with a keyboard, of course). I can't say that the pages all loaded effectively, or that it was a quality browser, but it was a Dreamcast, after all. One would think that the newer consoles would have better technology for such things.

As per the costing money to play online with consoles: don't PCs have monthly internet bills as well? I know mine does. Also, if you're an Xbox owner, with many new game purchases you get free Xbox live minutes (hours?). Regrettably, I don't know exactly how much time it is, but it still bears mentioning. Theoretically, with well rationed use, you could purchase a new game each month and get a discount on your online play while at the same time acquiring a game you wanted to buy anyway.

From a hardware perspective, you're quite correct: you're pretty much stuck with what you bought for a console. But with the vast amount of games being released for the consoles (and I'm not saying that this differs from the PC) you should be able to find a game that suits your mood/tastes without too much difficulty, even without mods/map editors and whatnot.

[ May 28, 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

But here we come back to the point that internet is a universal medium, not only limited to online gaming but also as all the other things it's used for.

You misunderstood what I meant with bound to the industry. I meant that they supply you with always the same, just with a different look because it's easier (and cheaper) to produce. Now the reason this happens less (note: I didn't say never) on pc is because the games usually have a longer lifetime, because of all that custom content, which actually produces the same effect as what consolegame makers try to sell you, nl. "Old games in new coats". But sadly on console, the customer needs to buy these "Old games in new coats" because there is no custom content that does the same. Hence, and the industry doesn't deny this, they make lots more games for consoles since it's easier to make money with them than with pc games, since the games tend to last less long (and are cheaper sold for pc).

 

No, I don't agree. In fact, I believe everyone is a good, respectful person until proven otherwise.

IIRC, consoles use the same lines as PC does, but only to contact pre-defined servers. Same price, plus gaming fees. It's a closed enviroment, whereas PC's allow users to interfere and customize it to the way they want. Even though it's often abused, it's still 1-0 for PC in this aspect.

Speaking of editors -since when those have been available for consoles? Can you name a single fan-made mod that works solely on, say; PS2? Also, even if there is a 'vast' amount of games, how long until you have to buy a new console to play the new games, or have to seek out a old console to play the older ones? (Ref. NES, SNES, Mega Drive, 32X, Genesis, C64, etc.)

 

Actually, there are more quality games for console than pc. To make a game for a console, one would need, at least, recognition from the console's producer. i don't think a crappy "deer hunter" can pass the test. On the other hand, since pc is more "open source", you get crappy games much more frequent than console, for example, deer hunter series (SERIES!!). Moreover, since there is no patch for console, the final product (game) is really final. But for pc games, you know, i know, we all know, we get half finished products too often. Release first, patch later. For example, ToEE, lionheart and the infamous PoR. The openness of pc gaming market made it possible for small company to produce game, even crappy ones. In rare cases we get real gem like Divine Divinity and Sacred.

So, as i was saying,

PC is open ended. Anyone can create games and sell it. No one needs to seek Microsoft first to produce a game. At the other end, dedicated users can further the playability of pc games with mods, remember Counterstrike? This, console cannot. For me, this is my single, most important, very powerful argument aganist console, mods.

 

Says who? Isn't quality a relative term? If I say "Deerhunter is a megablast game!" isn't it then a sc. 'quality game?'

 

Ah, teekc posted what I didn't have the guts to: Console games are, on average, of superior quality (I figured I'd get flamed out of my skull for posting that on a predominantly PC gaming board), for the reasons he said. Also, I hear "such and such a company rushed the release of this game" quite a bit more with regard to PC gaming, because the developers figure that they'll just release a patch later to fix the myriad bugs that spring up. Not having this option, console companines really have to make sure it works right out of the box. If I buy a PS2 game, I don't have to worry about some bug wiping out my hard drive, a la POR.

Just a thought (maybe somebody else can throw some numbers that contradict me) but since consoles are more user friendly and accessible, wouldn't it stand to reason that more people would have them? I'm thinking about casual gamers would be more likely to buy a console then a PC for the purposes of gaming, meaning that consoles would take in more money. This would in turn lead to developers leaning towards putting their best efforts into console games rather then PC games, as there is the potential to reach a larger audience.

@Wirhe

I think he was referring more to the quality of production rather then the quality of the gameplay. "Quality" would mean less bugs, runs smoother, better playtesting, etc. , which would be less subjective.

That's why I distinctly (maybe not distinctly enough, I'll admit) said that you cannot get mods/fan addons for console games. However, I will also say that only popular games have vibrant mod communities; there are many, many quality BG2 mods available here, but what about IWD2? The pickings are rather slim. Even mods generally only serve to enhance games that are already quite good.

Buying a new console every 4-5 years is no more expensive then keeping a PC upgraded to the point where you can keep playing the new games that are released, as I've said before. As for older games, many of the old classics are being rereleased, especially older RPGs: I'm thinking Breath of Fire and Lufia for the Game Boy, Final Fantasy Antholigies series, and I've heard of a rerelease of the old Phantasy Star games for Genesis.

Another thing: if you know/can learn Japanese, or can obtain a script or a game that doesn't require reading to play, you have access to the Japanese import market for consoles, which opens up many, many new games available to play. Might not apply to most North American/European gamers, but it's just something to keep in mind.

 

Sorry, but I just noticed this from Rastor:

Rastor, just out of curiosity, could you describe this system? Assuming you're talking about starting from scratch (except perhaps monitor, which would be the equivalent to a T.V. for a console), and you're not talking about stolen parts , I'd like to know what $500 system would be able to run games coming out until 2010.

 

@ Splunge

That's actually very easy, though this is something most people don't seem to get: not every part of your comp needs to be topnotch. The only two parts that you really need to invest in are the graphic card (which will take a bit more than half the the value of the $500 comp ) and the ram. The other parts don't need to be that performant, if they are it's only luxury that makes the comp unnecessary expensive. For games you should suffice with a 20 GB HD (only need more if you download alot of movies and other (mostly illegal ) files). For the speed of your cpu, you don't need the highest speed either. On contrary to populare belief, it's almost never the cpu that makes a comp outdated for a certain game. And all the rest if very affordable as long as you don't take fancy things like cordless stuff and so fort. So I really think it is possible to make that comp.

note: this post of mine is based on the assumption $500 ~ €500

 

Sure, it can be annoying, but look at the positive side: if there is something that would surely make the game unbearable (say: some overpowered enemy or something else), the PC-game makers have time to listen the customer-feedback and change it -like they did with the new Deus Ex. If there is a bug in the final console-game, it's there to stay.

Thus those games last much longer. Compared to console games, there will never be anything new or changed, or even a slimmest chance of changing it yourself. With PC, you have that chance, and there is a chance that those games you value will become better as mods are released for them.

True, they recycle a lot of games for the new consoles, but usually they are exact copies of the old ones -but with a fresh price tag of 50€. PC can emulate the original ones for free (since, of course; you own the original cartridge). If you exclude those recycled games, how 'vast' the collection really is and are they truly that great in comparison considering that they often are from the same companies that make PC-games?

As a final point, upgrading your PC is not done in 5 year cycles. It's done when there are new games you absolutely want to play (like the upcoming Doom3 and Half-Life 2, who will without doubt spawn a variety of mods). There is always a large variety of older games too that you might have skipped due of the price (remember the cheap-game-shelves in your nearest supermarket?) Console games will always stay more expensive due of the license fees, so, in long term; PC-games are not only more customizable, but also cheaper. Nevertheless, consoles are easy to use, and guess that is their strongest point...

 

Meatdog, I agree with you that it would be fairly easy to do for games available today. It was Rastor's comment about games coming out for the next 6 years that has me wondering.

My current computer is 4 years old, and was mid-to-high end at the time, and there are games out now where I don't meet the minimum spec requirements. For $500, you are basically getting a budget system with perhaps a mid-range video card, and I just don't see that as being able to play all games coming over the next 6 years.

 

For $500, you could get a PC with an 80GB hard drive, 1024 MB DDR2 RAM, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, Sound Blaster Audigy 2, and an Athlon64 Processor (probably more than that if you looked hard enough). You would probably have to build it yourself.

I didn't say that it would run all the games with all graphics running full-powered, I said it would run them. I've got a 6-year old PC sitting on the floor of my study that can run any game on the market today.

Actually, no it is not. Just as it is technically illegal to burn custom CDs (regardless of where you got the source) and watch taped television shows more than once. It is illegal to install any computer program on more than one computer as well. As such, I suggest that any discussion about emulators be stopped.

Yes, although PC internet connections are generally cheaper unless you go with broadband (and even that is pretty cheap nowadays).

I would disagree with that. It depends on what type of game you want. When it comes to RPG/RTS/Wargaming I would give the PC the nod every time. If you're more into FPS/Arcade style games, then I'll give it to consoles.

Except they are not equivalents. Computer monitors can handle still images much better and they have much higher resolution, which is why computers have better graphics.

 

Could you name a first person shooting game for console? How to aim using gamepad? (then i remembered that duck shooting game back in nintendo's day, that kind of fps?)

There are really more crappy games available for pc than all the consoles combined, so crappy that you cannot even play it. You install such games you are at risk of damaging all other data you have in your harddrive. Have you heard of such thing from console games? i am not just speculating, you can see my reasoning in previous post.

Ever since 386 i never touched console again, not even arcade games. But then everytime i celebrate a good quality pc game, my ps2 friend had already a few. Most of the reasons are explained above. Another one is because good Japanese game developers are all in the console gaming industry. The only Japanese pc games they produce are those of hentai (cartoon porn).

 

i would like to point out that you CAN surg the net with your xbox... i did it all the time while i was grounded. its not as easy but it is possible... and you have to have a mod chip in.

but with that i still give the PC the nod...games have higher quality imo.

 

@Rastor...you're talking 500 dollars from 1960, adjusted for inflation, right?

Even if $500 could cover a 9800 pro and an Athlon64 processor (which it just about does), you still have the issues of case, power supply, mother board and cd rom...for starters. I'd have to say minimum price of a current game-worthy rig is @$800-1000 dollars.

Doesn't matter though, PC's still rule...but if you want Geforce3 graphics...fell free to stick with Xbox .

 

Now to put an end to this overly used and not as strong as it sounds comment:

There indeed are but here comes the explanation of why they aren't so abundant on pc. Console is very clonelike in it's games. Hence, when a good game comes out you get tons of clones that improve a little on the original but are actually just some clones. But if those clones improve enough to satisfy the public, then they are again considered great games.

Now I know for pc games terms like ...clone are used too, but the new game resembles less his parent than on console. If pc would have been as swamped in the clones like console was, they would have at least as many good games.

 

I just did an online search for both of those components, from quality dealers. I found the Radeon for $169 and the Athlon64 for $173. I stand by my $500 statement. You just have to know where to look.

GoldenEye? Halo?

Frankly, it depends on what you call quality. Personally, I don't enjoy the vast majority of games that come out on console.