That might matter if you had to pick one or the other…As mentioned upthread, the console is generally plugged into the larger screen with better sound (5.1 vs 2.1 on the PC).
Spend any significant period of time with discretionary income and you’ll end up like me: 7 PC’s, 2 Xbox’s, a 360, Wii, and an Apple TV. Packaging constraints prevent me from putting a PC in the home theatre, otherwise the home theater has one (or more) of everything that can deliver content to the couch. Well, except BluRay, but that’s another philosophical topic for another thread.
ETA: Emulation is pretty much the main use of our Wii these days. The kids love Super Mario and Mario Kart 64, likewise, There’s a ton of Gamecube games that are DIRT cheap out there.
I’m the same. I do own a couple consoles (XBox, Wii), but in general they don’t get used much. The Wii gets used occasionally when we have people over, and I sometimes use Wii Fit. The Xbox is used for DDR as an alternative workout during the winter when outdoor activities are limited. The few times I’ve tried to use a console for real gaming I always end up back at the PC.
I keep trying, though. Bought an XBox 360 earlier this year, used it for a week, and returned it. I just don’t like consoles.
Buying the next gen console is 350-400 bucks. Replacing a video card is 400 bucks. I’m not convinced the “it’s upgradeable!” argument holds any water. By the way, you know the computer you bought 5 years ago? Current hardware doesn’t even fit in it.
If you spend $400 you’ll get a graphics card much more powerful than that in any of the consoles. To match the 360 I doubt you’d have to spend $100. Its relatively ancient technology.
Yeah. Even a middle of the road video card and motherboard to accept it (if necessary, usually it isn’t) wouldn’t run much more than $200.
$400? Craziness. I would never spend that much on a video card. Hell, my whole computer cost only a little more than that off Ebay recently and it runs circles around an Xbox!
You are either one of three people: You own a computer and will be upgrading at some point OR you do not own a computer (unlikely) and want to purchase one.
Either way you’re going to purchase or upgrade your current computer at some point.
So, you’re right, for $200 there’s no way you can build a PC that will play games (actually, yes you can, but not current gen games. Older games yes). But you are ALREADY going to spend money on the upgrade or new PC. You’ve already chosen to do so. Now you can buy a cheap PC OR spend about the same amount you would spend for a console and get a Pc that would do all those PC things it needs to do BETTER, AND be able to play games.
It’s a no brainer.
Or in other words, for people like me the console is the extra expense.
In 3 years when I go to upgrade my system I can save $200-$300 and get a low end PC, then spend the same amount on a console (probably more for the next gen ones) OR I can go ahead and spend the same money on a PC that will encode my video faster, give me a smoother multi-tasking experience AND play all the games I want (which will also be less expensive than console games). If I would have bought console equivalents of all my games last year I probably would have spent twice the amount I did on games. Throw that in there and the PC is an even bigger bargain.
I think that’s an incorrect assumption. People who like to upgrade will upgrade. People who could care less will wait for their old computer to die before buying a new one.
Saying one is cheaper than the other is ignoring the realities of the console market (prices will always come down over time to play the latest games) and the video card market (prices will always stay constant to play the latest games).
And that PC will be unable to play all of the games out there that are only released for consoles. While the reverse, excluding WoW, Crysis and a few other high profile titles, hardly exists.
What games that aren’t exclusives to a SINGLE console aren’t available on PC? In fact, occasionally we get a game that is available on PS3 but not on Xbox and vice versa.
I think all the very best games are generally cross-platform inclusive. I don’t think there’s too many games that are really good AND really popular that are console-only releases.
You’d be right, but there is a huge number of games are released on the PC eventually, months or sometimes years after the console release.
And then of course, consoles have all of those amazing first party games. Outside of Blizzard, I can’t think of a developer that sticks solely to releasing PC games anymore.
Years? Really?
:dubious:
And why would any developer only release PC games at this stage of the industry? If the game is good, they should engineer it for all platforms in order to increase profits.
Off the top of my head (so I may be a bit off) Jade Empire took two years didn’t it? How long did Fable take (about a year)? I also remember a bit of a lag on Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect. Of course PC gamers got a better product to make up for those delays.
As for PC exclusives I think Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2? Being how much I love RPG’s and RTS’s there’s just no competition for me. I’d love to be able to afford a console habit at the same time though.
I must be misunderstanding as there are tons of PC exclusives… Most of the games I buy are PC only.
From my latest purchases:
Mount and Blade
Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War
Civ 4: Colonization
Empire: Total War
Football Manager 2009
Drakensang
Sins of a Solar Empire
EvE Online
Spore
Supreme Commander
Hellgate London
Heroes of Might and Magic V
Sim City 4
Red Alert 3
X3: Terran Conflict
Those are just the games sitting next to my PC. One or two of those might have been ported over, I’m not positive. Evidently I like strategy/rpg games too, heh.
To counter the Fable example there is The Witcher, which it appears will port to consoles over 18 months after it was released on the PC.
I own a PS3 too. I play sports/racing games on it when I feel the urge (not very often). I also use it to play Blu-Ray because I’m too lazy to hook up my PC to my TV. I love the convenience. I would love the ability to switch out the graphics card for something a little more modern though .
I should also point out, PC gaming has an extremely vibrant indie game scene these days. Sure, most gamers will scratch their heads and shrug when you mention most of them, but there are some real gems out there. And many are completely free, to boot. Dwarf Fortress for life, baby!
I think one place were PC Games have a legitimate black eye is the methods of copy protection that are used. If it were back in the old old days and copy protection consisted of answering questions from a book, or one of those wheels were you had to look something up I wouldn’t be saying this. But, when you install a game and have to be afraid that a toolkit will be installed, or that your DVD drive is going to stop working that’s a serious stumbling block for the industry.
I’ve got to ask, how’s that work? How does an ASCII game with the most overdone, obtuse interface ever designed by man possible work as an XBox 360 game?
FPS games absolutely blow on consoles because it’s completely uncomfortable, awkward and inefficient to move around in an FPS with your damn thumbs. Left hand on keyboard and right hand on mouse is a billion times more intuitive and satisfying.
Another advantage for PC is that those inclined to steal games can do so by simply downloading them, whereas to steal games for consoles you would have to physically steal the game from a store, exposing yourself to far greater risk. Not that I would ever advocate stealing games.
ETA: There is ONE console FPS that had a really intuitive control system: Turok, Dinosaur Hunter for Nintendo 64. Anyone who remembers playing that game will know what I mean. To date that is the ONLY console FPS I can think of with good controls. But the shooting in that game was just mindless blasting away at enemies - precise control of a firearm in a game requires a mouse. And by the way, any FPS now that does not feature realistic aiming with iron sights is a piece of shit.
.