PC Gaming Renaissance on the Horizon?

AML

Well-known Member
http://pc.ign.com/articles/662/662771p1.html

Rather interesting wee article. If Vista promises to be more game friendly and plug n play becomes a reality for PCs then it may be possible that things could change.

However, as was disscused in this thread:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258753

Regarding the likes of SLI and XFire (ATi's dual card system).
Things may indeed only get worse due to the mounting costs of PC gaming and the "good enough" level consoles are now reaching.

Most people are unwilling to pay such a heafty price for a PC that only sees RTS and FPS games.

Even popular PC games such as the Rainbow Six series have migrated to consoles due to better sales leaving the PC with fewer and fewer titles to call its own.

Vista will indeed need to be something really special and companies like NVidia and ATi need to stop ripping PC gamers off.
 
J

JayList

Guest
No, last hurrah of the games pc.

I think that the consoles have pushed ahead quite far this time, not that Pcs won't catch up but I don't think it's possible to get 360/PS3 quality graphics on a pc yet , even one costing 3000 pounds.

It's also about convinience and sociability. A console is much more sociable and has much more cred than a PC.

Hi Def screens will also give the consoles finnaly a display as good as the pc.

Also the games market is much larger generally on the consoles.

I have both. And every year I wonder If it's worth upgrading. I am getting closer to the point where I won't .

However , you still get a much large range of games on the PC, including much deaper strategy games than on consoles . Until a keyboard or other complex input device becomes commonplace on consoles, there will still be a market for the PC.
 

AML

Well-known Member
JayList said:
However , you still get a much large range of games on the PC, including much deaper strategy games than on consoles . Until a keyboard or other complex input device becomes commonplace on consoles, there will still be a market for the PC.
I love a good RTS and FPS as much as anyone, but is it worth spending $3000 for a new machine just to play 2 genres?

As good as say, Age Of Empires 3 may look, I dont think its worth the price tag that goes along with it.

This is just the gaming aspect of PCs though. Lets not forget that they can also do many other things!

Recently ive been using my PC for Hi def video viewing (.TS files and the like) as well as regular old web surfing and word processing.

Its only really the GPU thats a ripp off. If they could just bring those prices down by half, then i think the PC would blossom as a gaming platform.
They also need to think about bringing more titels to the PC as exclussive.
 

Tejstar

Well-known Member
AML said:
They also need to think about bringing more titles to the PC as exclusive.
It's very difficult to make PC's exclusive though, as if a game is successful then publishers want to make more money by tapping into the console market. The only barrier is console spec, but given the impending launch of new consoles, I doubt we'll see any pc exclusives for a long while yet.
 

wormvortex

Well-known Member
i gave up buying consoles after the ps2, yeah the graphics are getting far far better but the gameplay/storyline is getting duller and duller. If i get a ps3 its only gonna be because of final fantasy 12.

maybe the ps3/xbox will do soooo well it will force ati/nvidia to lower their prices.
 

Monty Burns

Well-known Member
AML said:
I love a good RTS and FPS as much as anyone, but is it worth spending $3000 for a new machine just to play 2 genres?

....
heh - I payed 1500gbp (3000USD) just to play one game and surf/email. :eek:

Stranger things can happen .....


(Eve-Online in case your interested)
 

Tigerblade

Well-known Member
Ethics Gradient hit the nail on the head in the last post in that thread. Nothing more needs to be said really :thumbsup:
 

Shoki

Active Member
Where i agree that keeping upto date with the latest hardware is getting very expensive, i tend to see pc and console gaming as being different, in that alot of console games can be very shallow experiences aimed at a younger market where alot of pc games are much more involving and have more depth and in my view aimed at a more mature audience, for instance compare flight sims available for each format, although a small market i just dont think a game such as il2 would be ever considered for a console, its simply not a quick fix game or one that could be played well using a control pad. Or take rome total war on the pc and spartan total war on consoles, one an indepth strategic affair requiring many hours and patience to play through, the other a quick fix beat em up, thats not to say that rome wouldnt be possible on a console but the developers obviously feel there is no market for that kind of game on the playstation or xbox. Even games such as Battlefield2 show the difference, non of the commander or squad compnents of the game are available in the console versions, so for me the game is almost dumbed down and loses features that add so much to the game for me. Plus the fact that many games have had their lives extended through mods and simply having great mp content makes pc gaming, for me atleast, a much more rewarding experience than consoles, i'm not trying to turn this into a pc vs console argument as at one time or another i'v probably owned every console thats been released, and do plan on getting one of the next gen consoles when they appear, i just hope the future of gaming is'nt dumbed down versions to satisfy a youth market.
 

AML

Well-known Member
I suppose age does have a lot to do with it.

I just dont want console makers to think only kids buy their systems.

Lets look at what hapened to what was once a PC game:
Rainbow six and Ghost recon. Also seem to have been dumbed down for consoles.
They now even have it in 3rd Person rather than 1st as it should be. Also the controll of your team members seems to have gone auto on the console rather than what it was on the PC.
I remember being able to play the game a bit like a turn based strategy game and that was one of the reasons I loved Ghost Recon.

Ubi soft have spoiled this franchise by taking it to console.

Simply giving it nicer graphics on the 360 or PS3 doesn mean its suddenly going to be a better game.

I guess looking at things like this means PC gaming will be arround for a long time.
 
J

JayList

Guest
Monty Burns said:
heh - I payed 1500gbp (3000USD) just to play one game and surf/email. :eek:

Stranger things can happen .....


(Eve-Online in case your interested)
I junked my uber laptop cause I couldn't play BF2 and built myself a great htpc.

Now I have rsi so I can't play it! :thumbsup:

Unless you get games like Civ4 or Rome Total was as mentioned, then the PC will provide an alternative gaming platform.
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
Until a keyboard or other complex input device becomes commonplace on consoles, there will still be a market for the PC
Agree with this 100% - I primarily play FPS and, having played Halo 1 and 2 on the XBox, know there is no way the consoles could replace the PC until they become more flexible on the inputs. I should imagine the same is true for Flight Sim fans and Driving fans who, presumably, like their own dedicated inputs (Joystick, Steering Wheel).

I doubt we’ll see any pc exclusives for a long while yet.
Why do 'PC Exclusives' matter? It is an issue for consoles as Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are always looking for that 'killer game' that is going to sell their hardware (and thus more games - which is where they make the money). The PC doesn't share that intregrated interest between it's hardware and software producers hence the reason we have so few exclusive games.

Maintaining the quality of PC games is much more important than worrying about whether they are exclusives. By this I mean maintaining the superior control offered on PCs - namely free look mouse in FPS and support for multiple control devices in other games. Many console ports get this right: Halo for example is much more enjoyable on the PC. Likewise ensuring the games have 'depth' - something frequently missing on the pre-teenage focused consoles.

The bottomline is that PC gaming may not be the most profitable aspect of the video game market - but it is large enough to survive and continue to prosper. Half Life 2, which sold over 1 million copies, is a classic example of precisely how lucrative the market can be.
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
I personally can only see the PC market declining. It will never really maintain mass market appeal for a couple of reasons :-

1) The average computer buyer just picks up some £500 - £1000 machine from PC world these days and they just aren't good enough to play games on (especially once they are a year or so old). So the old reason for the average joe playing games on the PC (i've already got a PC that I use to surf the net so I play the odd game on it) doesn't really hold these days.

2) The cost of buying & maintaining a PC capable of running new games at their best is high. You can easily pay between £1000 & £2000 for just the tower when you are looking at a top end gaming PC. This then needs upgrading at least 3 times during the average console generation (I think i've upgraded mine at least 3 times since 1999 and it still desparately needs an upgrade now!). I guess the average upgrade (more ram, new card, new CPU & maybe even a new MoBo) can cost between £500 & £1000 depending on how top end you want your PC.

Really PC gaming has become pretty elite and you need to spend a decent amount of cash to keep up with it. Consoles on the other hand come with just about everything you'll need for the next 5-6 years in one box, generally cost between £200 & £300 and can offer superb integrated services like X-Box Live. You just stick your game in and you're off, no installing, no setting up the game to run OK on your machine. I agree that generally you get more indepth games on the PC but consoles (especially the X-Box) are aimed at a much older demographic these days.

I guess it comes down to who has the time to play PC games these days. I'd love to play Civ 4 but I probably will struggle to find the time to play it if I buy it. The PC is full of great indepth strategy and RPG (especially MMORPG) games but unless you are unemployed or retired, who has the time!

I would love to have the cash to spend on a nice new PC and I would love to have the time in my life to do PC games justice as I do love strategy and MMORPG games. Sadly though I have an hour or two here or there and that's probably the case with most people these days. Consoles fill that gap as you can stick them on and have great fun for a couple of hours racing supercars around New York with a bunch of other people. I'm now firmly a console gamer and the switch really happened when I got my X-Box last Autumn. Until then I was mainly a PC gamer and would upgrade my PC every couple of years.

I have fond memories of playing PC games (Counterstrike, MOHAA, DOD, Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Half Life 1 & 2, Command & Conquer, Battlefield 1942, Diablo 2, Hearts of Iron 1 & 2 etc.) but for me things have definately moved on and I can see consoles moving from strength to strength with this new generation of machines.
 

rvdbarnes

Standard Member
All i can say is i much prefer to be playing games, surfing the net, emailing, working and everything else, on a pc, especially when its something youve built, upgraded and maintained yourself!! im sure i could be just as happy spending what it would cost for a 360 on upgrading my gfx card and RAM.
And then theres the saving of nearly £10 in some cases on the new games titles i would be saving.
And im pretty confident my system would still be fine mid 2006 when id be shelling out for a ps3, accessories and more new games!

However, thats just me for example. :hiya:

Everybody is different! ;)

rvd
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
rvdbarnes said:
All i can say is i much prefer to be playing games, surfing the net, emailing, working and everything else, on a pc, especially when its something youve built, upgraded and maintained yourself!! im sure i could be just as happy spending what it would cost for a 360 on upgrading my gfx card and RAM.
And then theres the saving of nearly £10 in some cases on the new games titles i would be saving.
And im pretty confident my system would still be fine mid 2006 when id be shelling out for a ps3, accessories and more new games!

However, thats just me for example. :hiya:

Everybody is different! ;)

rvd
Indeed, it's not a go at PC gamers as like I said given the time & money and I would still be a PC gamer.

Looking at someone either becoming a 360 gamer or a PC gamer though and the costs are very different. As things stand you can't get a PC that matches the technical spec of the 360 so the nearest you could get would be £2000 + for the tower. The 360 should be around a good 5-6 years. Generally a graphics card that is top of the range now will be showing it's age in a couple of years time and you are talking the price of another 360 there just in your 1st graphics card upgrade and that is assuming that you aren't going down the SLI route. The processor will also probably be due an upgrade and the constant push for more memory at faster speeds will probably warrant an upgrade there. Like I say that's just the first couple of years & generally to keep the PC running games as they should be run you need to keep addresing upgrades every 2 years or so.

The good thing is that after the first upgrade cycle (say around 2008) the top end PC will have probably advanced to become a more power powerful platform than the 360. Also as you say the games are cheaper, but to be honest this can be less of a problem if you shop around. I've only bought 2 X-Box games at £29.99 and the rest were all sub £20 apart from Farcry which was £25.

There's nothing wrong with PC gaming at all if you have the time & money to invest in it, which sadly I don't. My point wasn't that PC gaming isn't right for you or indeed 99% of the people in this forum (it's a PC gaming forum after all ;) ) but that for the mass market, the console (which ever brand you prefer) is the machine of choice.
 

rvdbarnes

Standard Member
Hi CAS FAN

I think my post may have come across as a defence! damn etiquette!!!
No offence or anything was taken against pc gaming at all , just thought id try and contribute to the thread :thumbsup:
Alot of good points have cropped up through the thread, in favour of both pc and console.
I understand what you mean about games prices , its probably not that bigger a problem really, if you shop around online etc.
I think the main reason im swaying towards pc, is because of the gaming genre pc gaming offers, im much more of a rts and strategy gamer then a beat em up and racing gamer so the range of pc titles is more suited to me.
To be honest im not against consoles either!! :) I do, or did at some point have just about every console released! i just cant resist a look at the new technology that come out!!

rvd
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
rvdbarnes said:
Hi CAS FAN

I think my post may have come across as a defence! damn etiquette!!!
No offence or anything was taken against pc gaming at all , just thought id try and contribute to the thread :thumbsup:
Alot of good points have cropped up through the thread, in favour of both pc and console.
I understand what you mean about games prices , its probably not that bigger a problem really, if you shop around online etc.
I think the main reason im swaying towards pc, is because of the gaming genre pc gaming offers, im much more of a rts and strategy gamer then a beat em up and racing gamer so the range of pc titles is more suited to me.
To be honest im not against consoles either!! :) I do, or did at some point have just about every console released! i just cant resist a look at the new technology that come out!!

rvd
No probs rvd, no offense taken. I would love to upgrade my PC but sadly I can't afford to now. Maybe one day I can return to PC gaming as I do love my strategy games.
 

rvdbarnes

Standard Member
Well i too hope you can return the pc gaming, im being over run by FPS !!
Well if you cant beat 'em join 'em, whos put my F.E.A.R disc in the Half life case!?! :D

rvd
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
Have to say I disagree with your logic CAS FAN,

The average computer buyer just picks up some £500 - £1000 machine from PC world these days and they just aren't good enough to play games on
Whilst I agree with your statement that alot of people buy 'off the shelf' PCs these days I would strongly dispute the statement that most cannot play modern games. It may be true to say that they cannot run the latest games at the highest resolutions with all detail turned up - but the vast majority of new PCs can cope with the vast majority of games. As most games tweak themselves to your system during setup then this isn't really too much of an issue.

In particular look at laptops. 3 or 4 years ago unless you had one of the rare laptops with a nVidia GeForce 2 Go GFX then you had no chance of playing a FPS game on a laptop. Now not only are a wide range of mobile GFX available that can handle 3D games as well as most desktops, but even integrated chips do a decent job of it.

The cost of buying & maintaining a PC capable of running new games at their best is high. You can easily pay between £1000 & £2000 for just the tower when you are looking at a top end gaming PC. This then needs upgrading at least 3 times during the average console generation (I think i've upgraded mine at least 3 times since 1999 and it still desparately needs an upgrade now!). I guess the average upgrade (more ram, new card, new CPU & maybe even a new MoBo) can cost between £500 & £1000 depending on how top end you want your PC.
PC Gaming isn't cheap - nobody is pretending it is - personally I buy a new PC approx. every 30 months rather than waste time and effort upgrading for modest improvements here and there. But you don't need the very latest GFX to play the latest games, you don't need the very latest processor, you don't need the very latest memory (etc) to play the latest games. If you're cost conscious when purchasing a new PC you can have an effective gaming platform for a reasonable price. Never as cheap as a console mind, but then a PC can be used for other uses as well.
 

wormvortex

Well-known Member
though the do bring out the next graphics card, newest amd processor etc... extremely quickly u don't need to update to them for a long time the amd fx's are good but pricey but you'd have no trouble playing games on a 3400/3500 athlon. Also besides F.E.A.R which does u graphics,memory to the extreme no games need huge amounts of ram the latest ati/nvidia to run nicely (well maybe BF2 as well) i could run Half life 2 on 1280X1024 with most settings on max without any issues at all and it looked amazing.
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
Rasczak said:
Have to say I disagree with your logic CAS FAN,


Whilst I agree with your statement that alot of people buy 'off the shelf' PCs these days I would strongly dispute the statement that most cannot play modern games. It may be true to say that they cannot run the latest games at the highest resolutions with all detail turned up - but the vast majority of new PCs can cope with the vast majority of games. As most games tweak themselves to your system during setup then this isn't really too much of an issue.

In particular look at laptops. 3 or 4 years ago unless you had one of the rare laptops with a nVidia GeForce 2 Go GFX then you had no chance of playing a FPS game on a laptop. Now not only are a wide range of mobile GFX available that can handle 3D games as well as most desktops, but even integrated chips do a decent job of it.


PC Gaming isn't cheap - nobody is pretending it is - personally I buy a new PC approx. every 30 months rather than waste time and effort upgrading for modest improvements here and there. But you don't need the very latest GFX to play the latest games, you don't need the very latest processor, you don't need the very latest memory (etc) to play the latest games. If you're cost conscious when purchasing a new PC you can have an effective gaming platform for a reasonable price. Never as cheap as a console mind, but then a PC can be used for other uses as well.
I think we're kind of agreeing here to be fair. My point is that if you buy a £500 PC now then I doubt it will play new games like Fear and Quake 4 with all the bells & whistles turned on (i.e. as the game is meant to be played). As time goes on (say 12 months down the line) then it will stuggle to play most new games (obviously the graphics intensive ones in the mold of Fear, Q4, COD2 etc) on a decent resolution and as they were meant to be played. If you buy a top end machine (like I have done in the past - say £1000 to £1500 without monitor) then you are looking at a 2-3 year time span before an upgrade is required (put it this way I bought my Geforce Ti4400 for £250 back in 2002 and now just 3 years on there have been 3 new generations and my GF4 won't even play quite a few games now never mind handle them well. Also I bought the Ti4400 card when it was the best card on the market bar the Ti4600!). The card really should have been upgraded to play Half Life 2 and Doom3 (both of which it struggled to Play) which are a year old now. So really that card had a useful life of around 2 years as a gaming card. My point is that if you buy a £500 machine then it's probably going to struggle with the latest and greatest games to begin with and after a year it will be rather ropey indeed. £500 a year works out pretty expensive when you compare it to say a 360 at £280 which will last say 4-6 years.

With a console you play the games as they were meant to be played, there's no sticking it in low res and turning off the effects just to get it running.

Basically I have my GF4Ti4400, 512mb ram, XP2200 tower which was was pretty high end 2-3 years ago and now games laugh at it. It does however do everything that I need a PC to do (internet, email, spreadsheets, word, photoshop, play HD video, edit photo's & video etc.) so it's not worth splashing out for a new PC when a 360 will take care of all my gaming needs. I think more and more PC gamers are starting to think like this and I can personally see a decline in PC gaming with the console markets expanding and becoming more & more accepted by everyone.
 

Knyght_byte

Well-known Member
It annoys me that so many games now get their first showing on consoles, look at GTA San Andreas, if they made that based on PC's....it would have been sooo much better looking as well as playing....instead its a crap port from consoles........
Ok so the new gen consoles (360 and PS3) are going to be slightly advanced on PC's for a little while, but not long........as soon as they have sold the initial wave, ATi and Nvidia will launch the same level graphics chips with the PhysX chip onboard for PC's...you just know thats their gameplan....lol........

only console i buy is Nintendo for Zelda and Mario....(even then i lost interest with Mario Sunshine, but Zelda is still all good...heh).....
I dont mind doing up my PC, but then im a hardcore gamer, i dont just play the game i buy, i download mods, i make maps and scenarios etc, i get a helluvalot more out of my £30-40 than i could from a console game.......i can then balance that against the cost of upgrading and in the long run it prolly works out even costwise......
I've nothing against consoles in a general sense, they have a very good use, you can just switch them on and play them, 5 or 6 friend around you can have a Mariokart night etc or whatever, that many people around a PC makes you nervous...heh....but i mostly play games with my friends online so all of us can play at once....ok consoles do do that nowadays, but again you have so many more options with PCs for what programs you use etc.....

i just wish they didnt think they have to push one section out of the market, why cant they just split it up, put some stuff out made for PC and some stuff out for console like it used to be.......

anyhow, bedtime, end of post without much sense...heh
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
Knyght_byte said:
It annoys me that so many games now get their first showing on consoles, look at GTA San Andreas, if they made that based on PC's....it would have been sooo much better looking as well as playing....instead its a crap port from consoles........
Ok so the new gen consoles (360 and PS3) are going to be slightly advanced on PC's for a little while, but not long........as soon as they have sold the initial wave, ATi and Nvidia will launch the same level graphics chips with the PhysX chip onboard for PC's...you just know thats their gameplan....lol........

only console i buy is Nintendo for Zelda and Mario....(even then i lost interest with Mario Sunshine, but Zelda is still all good...heh).....
I dont mind doing up my PC, but then im a hardcore gamer, i dont just play the game i buy, i download mods, i make maps and scenarios etc, i get a helluvalot more out of my £30-40 than i could from a console game.......i can then balance that against the cost of upgrading and in the long run it prolly works out even costwise......
I've nothing against consoles in a general sense, they have a very good use, you can just switch them on and play them, 5 or 6 friend around you can have a Mariokart night etc or whatever, that many people around a PC makes you nervous...heh....but i mostly play games with my friends online so all of us can play at once....ok consoles do do that nowadays, but again you have so many more options with PCs for what programs you use etc.....

i just wish they didnt think they have to push one section out of the market, why cant they just split it up, put some stuff out made for PC and some stuff out for console like it used to be.......

anyhow, bedtime, end of post without much sense...heh
PC's will always be the machine of choice for some people but I see the "hardcore PC Gamer" becoming a dying bread. I was once one myself and I would spend hours playing MMORPG's, Strategy games or FPS mods but now I just don't have the time. PC's were great when I was single but now i'm a married man I have other demands on my time. Consoles offer hassle free gaming that can but doesn't have to take up hours each time you play.

I agree that developers should still produce PC only games and some still do. The problem is money though and it's much more profitable to make a game (say GTA:SA on the PS2) and then just port it to the Xbox & PC. Console sales are generally higher than PC game sales now where as that didn't used to be the case (just look at how many copies the Sims shifted!). When PC games outsold console games developers made loads of PC games that were then redone for consoles, now it is becoming the other way around.

The fact of the matter is that consoles are becoming a true mainstream format where as PC's (whilst they still have a good following) are being deserted by once dedicated PC Gamers (like me) who see little point in upgrading any more. X-Box Live is amazing and provides a much greater experience than i've ever had on a PC online (and believe me I used to live online on my PC once). The fact that it's a solid system that works with all online games and that your online identity never changes makes it so great! I guess MS have always been great at making systems and with Live they really cracked the online side for me. With the new 360 live promising even more integration, stats and overall development of our online identities then I can only see Live going from strength to strength. There are certain games that the PC is great at (mainly RTS & Other Strategy games IMO) and these will probably always be in good supply on the PC. Personally though (now i'm used to it) I prefer playing FPS games on the X-Box. I know the PC gamers take on this and how a joypad can never compare to a mouse & keyboard as I once felt that way. To be honest it does take some getting over a M&K combo but now I can't understand why I ever played FPS games on a mouse & keyboard. There's no point arguing that though as it's been done to death and no PC gamer is going to prefer a joypad - I'd have just laughed at someone suggesting that I play CS with a pad instead 6 or so years ago!
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
PC's will always be the machine of choice for some people but I see the "hardcore PC Gamer" becoming a dying bread. I was once one myself...but now I just don't have the time. PC's were great when I was single but now i'm a married man I have other demands on my time. Consoles offer hassle free gaming that can but doesn't have to take up hours each time you play.
Not being funny CAS FAN but your argument seems based entirely on the fact you don't have the time to play in-depth PC games anymore (clearly you'll still very interested in the genre else you wouldn't browse the forum). And that you don't have the time/energy/money to upgrade your PC. Whilst I sympathise with your plight I'm sure new PC gamers are joining the fray just as old ones are leaving it. There are many people who like deep, complex and in-depth games - and at present those are found exclusively on the PC. There are plenty of pick up and play games on the PC as well - most FPS games for example - many fans of which would also never look at a console due to the limited control options.

I agree that developers should still produce PC only games and some still do. The problem is money though and it's much more profitable to make a game (say GTA:SA on the PS2) and then just port it to the Xbox & PC.
I don't see why the PC needs any exclusive titles to be perfectly honest. What matters is the quality of the conversion to PC. In many situations console games end up far more playable on the PC than on the original console. Look how much better Halo was on the PC than on the XBox. Even when the PC port is lacklustre - Red Faction II for example - the game can still end up more enjoyable due to the differing control options. And there are still plenty of developers who are prepared to put in the time and effort to make the PC version that much better...

The fact of the matter is that consoles are becoming a true mainstream format where as PC's (whilst they still have a good following) are being deserted by once dedicated PC Gamers (like me) who see little point in upgrading any more.
Again I disagree. PCs are becoming more and more popular for video editing and as media centres (such as music storage/jukeboxes) and thus ownership is not going down. As even cheap graphics cards are reasonably capable at 3D now - which they weren't in the days of your GeForce 4 - most PCs can also cope with most games. Especially if you are solely interested in the strategy side of things.

X-Box Live is amazing and provides a much greater experience than i've ever had on a PC online
I have no doubt XBox Live is an excellent experience - however online PC games are just as easy these days - and to be frank were never particularly difficult to get into given the likes of QSpy and Gamespy. And provided you use a decent server I find it hard to see how XBox Live could be better. In what ways does it provide a "better experience" in your opinion? Do you have access to the GBs of free add-ons that are available for many games?

I know the PC gamers take on this and how a joypad can never compare to a mouse & keyboard as I once felt that way. To be honest it does take some getting over a M&K combo but now I can't understand why I ever played FPS games on a mouse & keyboard. There's no point arguing that though as it's been done to death and no PC gamer is going to prefer a joypad
Well that is personal taste. We have had an XBox at work for years and I still think Halo is rubbish using it - and that is after hours and hours of use. IMHO after continuous side by side comparison of mouse/keyboard and joypad I would always, always opt for the former.
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
Rasczak said:
Not being funny CAS FAN but your argument seems based entirely on the fact you don't have the time to play in-depth PC games anymore (clearly you'll still very interested in the genre else you wouldn't browse the forum). Whilst I sympathise with your plight I'm sure new PC gamers are joining the fray just as old ones are leaving it. There are many people who like deep, complex and in-depth games - and at present those are found exclusively on the PC. There are plenty of pick up and play games on the PC as well - most FPS games for example - many fans of which would also never look at a console due to the limited control options.
Previously gaming wasn't that mainstream and your hardcore gamers would play on consoles and PC's. Things have become more and more mainstream in the console world since the advent of the PS1 really and this is increasing with each new generation. The amount of hardcore gamers (generally those that play on PC's as well and I would still put myself in that catagory) is not actually shrinking but the amount of casual gamers (who almost exclusively play on consoles) is increasing all of the time and thus the ratio of console to PC gamers is increasing. Developers will favour the most popular formats and if the PS3, 360 & Revo have say 90% of market share then I can't see many developers continuing to develop PC style games (such as the indepth strategy & simulation type games that the PC is so good at).


Rasczak said:
I don't see why the PC needs any exclusive titles to be perfectly honest. What matters is the quality of the conversion to PC. In many situations console games end up far more playable on the PC than on the original console. Look how much better Halo was on the PC than on the XBox. Even when the PC port is lacklustre - Red Faction II for example - the game can still end up more enjoyable due to the differing control options. And there are still plenty of developers who are prepared to put in the time and effort to make the PC version that much better...
Personally I much prefered the X-Box version of Halo as for some reason my PC struggled with it at launch and my PC is far more powerful than an X-Box. That aside the PC is strong when it comes to it's exclusive Strategy & Sim games (Hearts of Iron 2, Civ 4, FS2005 etc.) and PC gamers own a PC to play those sort of games. They generally don't own a PC to specifically play Fifa, Pro Evo or other lounge in front of the TV style games.


Rasczak said:
Again I disagree. PCs are becoming more and more popular for video editing and as media centres (such as music storage/jukeboxes) and thus ownership is not going down. As even cheap graphics cards are reasonably capable at 3D now - which they weren't in the days of your GeForce 4 - most PCs can also cope with most games. Especially if you are solely interested in the strategy side of things.
If you buy a PC for a media centre then fine but you will still need to upgrade in the future for gaming reasons even if your PC is still fine as a media centre. I still can't see a £500 PC playing say Fear as the developer intended.

Rasczak said:
I have no doubt XBox Live is an excellent experience - however online PC games are just as easy these days - and to be frank were never particularly difficult to get into given the likes of QSpy and Gamespy. And provided you use a decent server I find it hard to see how XBox Live could be better. In what ways does it provide a "better experience" in your opinion? Do you have access to the GBs of free add-ons that are available for many games?
The major benefit of X-Box live is the consistency that is carried through every live game (every game full stop on the 360). You have one identity and can see what your mates are playing at any time, hop into that game or even just chat with them whilst you stay in your game or continue watching your film. All your achievements for all games are stored on your gamercard along with your reputation and the style of gamer you are. The online interface is also the same for every game. You also don't have to download additional programs like Gamespy and all your friends may not be on there. With a PC you could end up with friends on all of the different services (Gamespy, QSpy, Steam etc.). Also on Live, voice is included as standard so you don't have some people using an ingame voice and others using 3rd part voice etc. You can just jump in, find someone to play and know that you are all using the same systems and that your stats are recorded for all on Live to see. Both the PC and the PS2 suffer on the online side from not having an across the board standard with 1 identity for everyone that uses the PS2 or PC. It's like some people have really sat down and said "right let's make this as hassle free as possible and make it so that people have a true consistent online identity". If you've never really tried Live then you could be forgiven for just thinking it's just another online service. Once you really try it though everything becomes clear about why it is so good.
 

Tojal City

Standard Member
CAS FAN said:
I guess it comes down to who has the time to play PC games these days. I'd love to play Civ 4 but I probably will struggle to find the time to play it if I buy it. The PC is full of great indepth strategy and RPG (especially MMORPG) games but unless you are unemployed or retired, who has the time!
Everything else you said, I don’t disagree, but this one is terrible, I spend almost 12 hours of my time dedicated to work (including lunch, and the time it takes to go to work) and I play this game and I still play football manager 2006, plus I still have to find the time, to read, see movies, tv series and to answers this.
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
Tojal City said:
Everything else you said, I don’t disagree, but this one is terrible, I spend almost 12 hours of my time dedicated to work (including lunch, and the time it takes to go to work) and I play this game and I still play football manager 2006, plus I still have to find the time, to read, see movies, tv series and to answers this.
Crikey! Can I have one of your days please. I presume that you do sleep in which case (assuming say 7 hours in the pit) that leaves you around 5 hours to do everything. Are you married or do you have a partner? To be honest if I was to start playing one of the games you mention then a mere couple of hours playing time just wouldn't cut it. I like to give those sort of games a really good 8 hour + session and I just can't fit that time in now. I'd say that I have a couple of hours each night when I can game and that timescale lends itself more to a few good games on the X-box than a Civ4 session.
 

overkill

Well-known Member
Previously gaming wasn't that mainstream and your hardcore gamers would play on consoles and PC's. Things have become more and more mainstream in the console world since the advent of the PS1 really and this is increasing with each new generation.
Actually CAS its the other way around. Consoles are much older than PC's for gaming, and have always had a bigger, more mainstream user base. When you compare the sales of Nintendos, Segas, PSX, PS2 and Xbox to the number of PC's sold as gaming systems the difference is roughly equal to that of Intels share of the market to AMD's.

PC gaming is a fairly recent phenomena, and while carving out a tidy niche, was never going to trouble the consoles.

That said, the true hardcore PC gamer is not going to sacrifice the high quality graphics and in depth games for the console. If for no other reason than console games are '5 minute wonders' rather than in depth, repeatable experiences. I barely ever get involved because being married I don't have the time to mess with the console. Why? Because the games bore me after about five minutes, and I end up going thru a raft of them! :D

All that will happen is the 'merry go round' will carry on, and as EG said elsewhere, most people will be happy to play games at a res that is still passable compared to the consoles, and not worry about upgrading very 6 months.
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
overkill said:
Actually CAS its the other way around. Consoles are much older than PC's for gaming, and have always had a bigger, more mainstream user base. When you compare the sales of Nintendos, Segas, PSX, PS2 and Xbox to the number of PC's sold as gaming systems the difference is roughly equal to that of Intels share of the market to AMD's.

PC gaming is a fairly recent phenomena, and while carving out a tidy niche, was never going to trouble the consoles.

That said, the true hardcore PC gamer is not going to sacrifice the high quality graphics and in depth games for the console. If for no other reason than console games are '5 minute wonders' rather than in depth, repeatable experiences. I barely ever get involved because being married I don't have the time to mess with the console. Why? Because the games bore me after about five minutes, and I end up going thru a raft of them! :D

All that will happen is the 'merry go round' will carry on, and as EG said elsewhere, most people will be happy to play games at a res that is still passable compared to the consoles, and not worry about upgrading very 6 months.
I wasn't suggesting that PC gaming was older than console gaming just that you only really had your "hardcore gamer" in the past and they played on both PC's (Home computers before that) and Consoles. It was the Playstation that really brought about the casual gamer by making consoles "cool" (Sony and it's marketing machine sticking them in nightclubs and having house tunes as soundtracks etc.). Since then this bread of casual gamer has developed further and they play soley on consoles (generally the PS2 these days).

I class myself as an ex true PC gamer who would think nothing of playing a very deep & complex strategy game (hearts of iron, Victoria, Civ2 etc.) but I just don't have the time to A) learn to play them and b) actually play them these days. Also to say that console games are 5 minute wonders is very harsh as in recent times I have found the opposite. Games like Forza & PGR2 not only have huge 1 player games which are extremely addictive and enjoyable, but superb online support on top. Pro Evo is my all time fave game and has been played solidly by myself since about 1998 (in it's various forms) and no other game i've ever played can come close to the depth that game possesses IMO. Depth in a game isn't just having 500 different screens to pop into as you allocate resources, perform diplomatic actions and wage war on other nations whilst making sure your population is happy & content. Games like Pro Evo just never get boring for me anyway and no one game is ever teh same as another.

Also why would a PC gamer have to sacrifice high quality graphics? The 360 displays both in HD resolutions (720p & 1080i) and also the range of PC resolutions upto a very high resolution (although can't remember exactly which res that is). The 360 is also more powerful than any current PC and is a dedicated games machine to boot. So there is none of this playing at a res that is passable compared to a console any more as the console is capable of PC resolutions now.

I've played PC games since the early 90's and if anything it's PC games that have become stale where the console market seems to be moving in new and exciting directions with regards to HD, online gaming and connectivity with existing home entertainment formats including PC's.

PC's are just machines that have been adopted for gaming purposes and if gaming didn't exist in it's current form and someone said "design my a device & set up for playing games on a screen" then the solution wouldn't be to adopt a modern day typewriter with the user sat hunched over a keyboard. They would design something more akin to a console where you stick your game in, sit back in your armchair with your purpose built controller and play video games with people from around the world.
 

Tigerblade

Well-known Member
CAS FAN said:
Also why would a PC gamer have to sacrifice high quality graphics? The 360 displays both in HD resolutions (720p & 1080i) and also the range of PC resolutions upto a very high resolution (although can't remember exactly which res that is). The 360 is also more powerful than any current PC and is a dedicated games machine to boot. So there is none of this playing at a res that is passable compared to a console any more as the console is capable of PC resolutions now.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The 360 will not hold a candle to a high end gaming rig. It's debatable whether it's more powerful also. The specs are deceiving....for example it has 48 unified shader pipelines...this sounds a **** load more than the 24 the GTX has, but, without getting to deep, they cannot be compared. They are totally different.

As regards to resolutions. I'm telling you now that the 360 will not be able to play at 1600x1200 + res, with 4x aa and 16af. Current high end rigs can, so straight away it's already losing.

Don't get me wrong, it should be a massive jump from ps2/xbox, but still not surpass a high end gaming rig. Just looking at shots of cod 2 on 360 and yes it looks amazing, far better than any console game out now, but it looks like cod2 on a high end rig.....playing in homes around the world right now.

I suppose the point I'm making is when it was announced it will have crapped on a gaming rig specs wise, but at the point of release it has been surpassed. This will only be more evident with 2 x 512mb GTX and an x2 5xxx (which should be out around the time the 360 is released). And isn't a PC with those specs built as a dedicated games machine?
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
Tigerblade said:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The 360 will not hold a candle to a high end gaming rig. It's debatable whether it's more powerful also. The specs are deceiving....for example it has 48 unified shader pipelines...this sounds a **** load more than the 24 the GTX has, but, without getting to deep, they cannot be compared. They are totally different.

As regards to resolutions. I'm telling you now that the 360 will not be able to play at 1600x1200 + res, with 4x aa and 16af. Current high end rigs can, so straight away it's already losing.

Don't get me wrong, it should be a massive jump from ps2/xbox, but still not surpass a high end gaming rig. Just looking at shots of cod 2 on 360 and yes it looks amazing, far better than any console game out now, but it looks like cod2 on a high end rig.....playing in homes around the world right now.

I suppose the point I'm making is when it was announced it will have crapped on a gaming rig specs wise, but at the point of release it has been surpassed. This will only be more evident with 2 x 512mb GTX and an x2 5xxx (which should be out around the time the 360 is released). And isn't a PC with those specs built as a dedicated games machine?
The 360 has been confirmed to be more powerful than any PC you can currently buy. There is also the fact that a console of less power can still produce games better than a PC as it's dedicated to gaming and not a multi tasking machine like the PC (My PC uses up system resources and around 200mb of memory to run just Windows XP). The fact that when my PC was far more powerful than my X-Box, yet struggled to even play Halo (when the X-Box played it flawlessly) is an example of this.

The 360 can play at the res you state and 4x AA is enabled as standard.

COD2 has already been compared on the PC and 360 and the 360 has received glowing reports running at a stable 60fps.

My final point is that is you are building a PC to even compete with the 360 over the next 6 months (i.e. the absolute top end PC that money can buy) then how much would a rig like that cost? At £280 you just can't go wrong with a 360 IMO.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest news

New Nvidia Shield devices 25 percent faster and add Dolby Vision
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Netflix gets subscriber boost ahead of rival's challenge
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung Galaxy S10 bug unlocks phone for anyone
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Apple TV app now available on Roku devices
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom