gaming Console Vs. PC

[Guest]

I think your point over my head.

 

Once again:

 

Console hardware overstays it's welcome so you start getting games that run like shit by the end of it's life-span.

 

Which happens a lot sooner on any entry level gaming PC hardware you could get. Your point didn't go over my head, I was merely putting it into context. If we are talking about a $500-800 gaming PC vs. a PS3 built at the same time as the PS3 launch, that PC is going to require upgrades long before the PS3 will need to be replaced. No way a GeForce even 8800 GTS (which was a high end card in 2006) lasted you from 2006 to 2012 even and played the latest games. The PS3 was far from producing "games that run like shit" by the time that 8800 was put out to pasture.

 

If I recall the 8800 was like a $500+ card too. So no way you are building a PC on a $500 budget that is going to last 6+ years playing games on setting that are superior to the PS4 without upgrades. Like I can look on build right now and find a $500 build using a 750 Ti. No way in hell is that 750 Ti still going to play the latest games on highest settings in 5 years. Whereas the PS4 will probably still be playing the latest titles with decent settings by then and you will not have had to upgrade it.

 

If you want a gaming PC that will stay current for as long as the PS4 stays current, then you are going to need to spend a lot more than $500-800. The fact that you can still GET AAA titles on the PS3 (granted watered down) that are even running at 30FPS with only a few dips to where they are still fully playable is incredible. A gaming PC that was running a 10 year old graphics card would not even start the game most of the time.

 

I would not say that getting slightly better graphics for those first few years of a no upgrade comparison signify better value. While the PS3 will not be able to play next gen games as well as the PS4, the 10 year old PC won't be able to play them at all at that point. I'd say being able to play modern games even at medium settings at that point is a far greater value. Is it higher QUALITY? No, not at all. The PC is obviously going to be better QUALITY, but the better value is going to go to the console.

 

PC is a lovely platform and my preferred one, but I get super annoyed when PC gamers try to act like it's a flawless platform, and can't admit its shortcomings. PCs have flaws and their flaws are just as large as consoles despite how much propaganda PC gamers try to throw out there to convince people otherwise. I have seen every argument under the sun of why PC gaming is somehow magically "cheaper" than console gaming and a majority of said arguments are always with holes.

 

The initial cost to get into PC gaming even at an entry level is higher than consoles. That's a fact. No $400 PC for monitor and all is going to compete with a $400 PS4 for very long. Even a $600 PC is not going to compete for very long before upgrades are necessary. To top that off Steam Sales are NOT these amazing things that suddenly "make up for that cost". It's been shown a lot of console gamers buy games used which saves them money with every purchase even for new games. The ability to trade in games doubles their savings and they can do both of these at any time vs. PC gamers who must wait until a sale, and can not even return a game if it was not sold on steam or been played for more than 2 hours. A lot of the steam sales are on indie titles that people would not have bought anyways and the AAA titles a lot of the time are games that have been out for years. Sometimes you get lucky and get a new game that is discounted is a AAA title that is fairly new and an actual good deal. A lot of the time though PC gamers end up wasting more money because they end up buying a ton of games they would not even normally buy just because they are on sale. It's been proven that a majority of Steam users have a good collection of games that are never played.

 

I am even guilty of it, but I have never bought a console game that I did not play as soon as I could. When a game is on a digital library, you don't really think about it versus having to go to a store and pick it up and having it in your hand.

 

You can't deny that for the average person you can't really justify dumping the extra money for a negligible amount of quality difference that the average person is not even going to notice for maybe even a few seconds.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Guest

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

If I buy a PC that's equal to a more powerful than the current consoles, it's going to continue to have the same performance relative to said consoles permanently because the PS4 isn't going to magically get a arcane update that improves the hardware. "Playing at the highest possible quality" is irrelevant unless your one of those elitist fanbrats that consider any system not absolutely maxing out everything ever garbage.

 

Thus if you all care about is keeping your current level of performance relative to the console until the next one rolls around, it absolutely will last you as long as the console and keep performing the same relative to it. 

 

Granted, and it's nice and I plan to get a 970 for better graphical settings but that's only a bonus that you go for if you so choose.   

[Monsoon 1,662]

I prefer consoles just because I just want to sit down and play a game I'm not into upgrading the graphics as far as I can I just want to have fun which is what games are really about

[VengefulStrudel 1,495]

I will agree that the backwards compatibility is better, but not necessarily easier.

 

 

Eeyup, true! It may sometimes be as simple as changing compatibility mode, sometimes less simple like setting up a source port, and sometimes a complete and total nightmare just getting it to launch, let alone play it. I don't think anyone would want to go through a complex process just to play an old game, besides people that really want to or already know what to do/have done it before.

[Scrubbed user 3,417]

This is my entire argument for PC.

 

As a pretend racer, the games I want to play are on PC. Gran Turismo and Forza will never stand up to the proper sims any time soon.

[Adamgreen 1,129]

I used to be a console gamer (well I still am) but not very often. I like PC more because it just more enjoyable to be. Intense pressure emotions like playing tf2, dota 2, minecraft etc. it makes me more energize.

[Guest]

 

 

If I buy a PC that's equal to a more powerful than the current consoles, it's going to continue to have the same performance relative to said consoles permanently because the PS4 isn't going to magically get a arcane update that improves the hardware. "Playing at the highest possible quality" is irrelevant unless your one of those elitist fanbrats that consider any system not absolutely maxing out everything ever garbage.   Thus if you all care about is keeping your current level of performance relative to the console until the next one rolls around, it absolutely will last you as long as the console and keep performing the same relative to it.    Granted, and it's nice and I plan to get a 970 for better graphical settings but that's only a bonus that you go for if you so choose.   

 

 

Wasn't your whole shtick before that you can build a gaming PC for around the same price as a console? To get a PC that keeps up with the PS4 for the ENTIRETY of the PS4's lifespan is going to cost significantly more than a PS4. I've been PC gaming since the 90s and no PC that I built that was the same price as a console lasted as long as that console in terms of being able to play the latest games at even decent settings. No way in hell a $500 PC you built in 2006 can play MGSV, but the PS3 sure as hell can.

 

 

This is my entire argument for PC.

 

As a pretend racer, the games I want to play are on PC. Gran Turismo and Forza will never stand up to the proper sims any time soon.

 

I stopped taking the pcmasterrace reddit seriously a long time ago, because a majority of it is just bloating "facts" that are exaggerated. A lot of the points made on that argument are totally wrong, such as their modern mid range computer that they built to prove that PCs are "cheaper": It does not include a monitor, mouse or keyboard, all of which are necessary. I see also no windows installation included in that fee which will be necessary to play any games. They are hiding additional costs. Not to mention even if you could build that, you're only going to be playing the latest games for like... 3 years before upgrades become necessary. Factoring in a copy of Windows 10 alone brings you up another $90 (and I am being generous and not giving the $120+ prices I can find). Cheapo mouse and keyboard is another $15. Then a monitor is another 70+. And now you're up to about another $175 on top of your $340-510. Assuming you could amazingly get everything for cheapest, you're still sitting at $515 at best and $685 at worst. You've already paid $100 more than a PS4 and you don't even have a game yet. Meanwhile I have a PS4 and a game at that point. Even if I throw out the monitor, and you use a TV, you're still sitting at $445 which is more than a PS4.

 

Half the crap on there is all opinion or not even true. "Freedom to upgrade when YOU decide"? I got news for you, when your PC can't run the games because it's outdated you have to upgrade. Just like when an Xbox 360 is outdated because an Xbox One is out and you're not getting the latest games. It's literally the same crap in a different wrapper.

 

It also throws in crap that is just illegal to back up the argument such as emulation. While I love it, it's not a legitimate argument for someone who does not want to break the law.

 

The rest is subjective. "More highly rated exclusives"?

 

I try to avoid letting other  people make my arguments for me.

[Envy 6,202]

No, the fact there's fewer and fewer console exclusives outside of Nintendo which each generation is fact.

That 'fact' is irrelevant. It's not the amount of console exclusives, it's whether or not an individual finds them interesting. If someone finds a franchise exclusive to consoles fun (as I do with Kingdom Hearts) than, no, the PC can not replace that. There's a "fact" for you.

 

An odd response seeing how I wasn't even giving an opinion, unless you count the post before that mentioning the likes of Master of Magic.  But really, the breakdown is actually pretty straightforward:

 

First you have your Nintendo games.  You buy Nintendo consoles to play these games and for no other reason.  They are pretty much an isolated segment of the market.

 

Then you have your big budgets AAA games.  These are your Grand Theft Autos and Assassin Creeds.  The are released for every platform except Nintendo consoles, so it doesn't even matter which one you have.  If its not Nintendo, its going to run these games.

 

Third you have your console exclusives.  Well your non-Nintendo exclusives anyhow, as Nintendo is nothing but a pile of exclusives.  These are your Uncharteds and your Crackdowns.  They tend to be pretty generic run of the mill games that non the less command strong brand loyalty.  They basically exist to convince you to pick an Xbox over a Playstation and vice versa.  You can probably do without them and not really miss much in the way of gaming experience and they tend to be pretty generic and safe in their design, though I suppose that is just an opinion.

 

Finally there is everything else.  The indie games, grand strategy games, mobas, or whatever else that doesn't make it to console for any number of reasons.  This is a market of staggering size, and I can assure you that it is just as much about quality as it is quantity.  Some of the best games every made are found here, long time classics that you simply cannot obtain on the consoles.  Games that would surprise you if you ever gave them a chance. And the are all available to PC gamers in addition to the AAA titles.  They are easily worth sacrificing the likes of Uncharted for.

 

Granted, there are both financial and technical barriers to PC gaming that are not present when using an Xbox or Playstation, but if you have the cash and the technical knowledge you basically pick of the vast majority of what both systems have to offer plus an additional market of games filled with treasures that easily matches or exceeds the AAA market in size.  It also tends to encompass and lot more risk taking, which means you can find truly unique games that tend not to make it on the other systems.

You're missing my point entirely. Again, you're wanting to make this objective, it isn't.

[SystemError514. 86]

I prefer PC over Console. I still have my consoles, but I play on PC all of the time really.

I do like to think about the PCMR, but all in all, I don't care what you play on. Console or PC.

[Guest]

 

 

That 'fact' is irrelevant. It's not the amount of console exclusives, it's whether or not an individual finds them interesting. If someone finds a franchise exclusive to consoles fun (as I do with Kingdom Hearts) than, no, the PC can not replace that. There's a "fact" for you.

 

 

I too am also curious where this "more PC exclusives" fact comes from as well... There is entire libraries of console games that never got ported to PC. Nearly half the games on the N64 didn't. What do exclusives just stop counting after a certain time? I'm pretty sure Mario for the NES never got ported, or 90% of the NES library... Even if PCs are getting more exclusives than they used to, they have a long way to go before they catch up. Exclusives from consoles that are not being made anymore don't just suddenly stop counting you know.

 

That's like saying "yeah I came in first on lap 10, so I am doing better than everyone even though I came last in every lap before that and the race isn't even over yet." On average you would still be relatively low in the ranking.

[SquipyCheetah 449]

I love both for gaming, though I do use consoles for games like Fallout, GTA, COD, etc more because they just work better for me. 

[Mouse 302]

Which happens a lot sooner on any entry level gaming PC hardware you could get. Your point didn't go over my head, I was merely putting it into context. If we are talking about a $500-800 gaming PC vs. a PS3 built at the same time as the PS3 launch, that PC is going to require upgrades long before the PS3 will need to be replaced. No way a GeForce even 8800 GTS (which was a high end card in 2006) lasted you from 2006 to 2012 even and played the latest games. The PS3 was far from producing "games that run like shit" by the time that 8800 was put out to pasture.

 

To be fair, a PC we practically salvaged from a junkyard is able to play Cities Skylines, and the components are from 2006. C:S is a pretty demanding game, as well.

Oh yeah, and my PC from 2008 can run GTA V at low-medium settings above 30 FPS, while the last-gen consoles ran it below low settings at 20-30 FPS. Not bad. Not to mention that PC from 2008 is about to be almost twice as powerful as a PS4 with just a $100 GPU upgrade.

And with the new consoles being much closer to PCs in terms of architecture, I can guarantee that a 400 dollar PC built in the last year will run games just as well as the PS4 5 years from now, unless the game you're trying to run is unoptimized to all hell. The current gen consoles effectively have a really slow AMD CPU (clock speed is between 1 and 2 GHz if I remember correctly) and what is equivalent to an HD 7770-7850 as a GPU. They already have problems running some new games like The Witcher 3.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Mouse

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

To be fair, a PC we practically salvaged from a junkyard is able to play Cities Skylines, and the components are from 2006. C:S is a pretty demanding game, as well.

Oh yeah, and my PC from 2008 can run GTA V at low-medium settings above 30 FPS, while the last-gen consoles ran it below low settings at 20-30 FPS. Not bad. Not to mention that PC from 2008 is about to be almost twice as powerful as a PS4 with just a $100 GPU upgrade.

And with the new consoles being much closer to PCs in terms of architecture, I can guarantee that a 400 dollar PC built in the last year will run games just as well as the PS4 5 years from now, unless the game you're trying to run is unoptimized to all hell. The current gen consoles effectively have a really slow AMD CPU (clock speed is between 1 and 2 GHz if I remember correctly) and what is equivalent to an HD 7770-7850 as a GPU. They already have problems running some new games like The Witcher 3.

 

The new consoles were horribly outdated out of the gate, as demostrated when the 750 (a sub $150 card that can easily be used to upgrade a store-bought desktop with a big enough case and the right ports to a gaming system) came out a few months after the PS4/Xbone and was already a console killer. 

 

I only plan the get a Wii-U and PS4, and even then the later will likely only be for UC4 and KHIII.

That 'fact' is irrelevant. It's not the amount of console exclusives, it's whether or not an individual finds them interesting. If someone finds a franchise exclusive to consoles fun (as I do with Kingdom Hearts) than, no, the PC can not replace that. There's a "fact" for you.

 

That's the not point, I said there's few exclusives (like three big ones for the PS4), not none.

 

Keep in mind this is coming from a collector and I own like 20 consoles and well over 1,000 games between them so I'm not talking as a PC elitist. The new consoles just don't have the exclusive power the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era (or even PS3/360/Wii era) had anymore. 

[long gone 8,929]

For those of you saying "hurr durr cheap PC part lists don't include a monitor!" do you include the price of a TV in the console's cost? And you can use literally any monitor with a PC. Have an old 1440x900 monitor lying around? Or what about a 1024x768 one? Go ahead, use it! There's nothing keeping you from using them aside from input and output ports on your GPU and the monitor.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Daring

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,003]

I stopped taking the pcmasterrace reddit seriously a long time ago, because a majority of it is just bloating "facts" that are exaggerated. A lot of the points made on that argument are totally wrong, such as their modern mid range computer that they built to prove that PCs are "cheaper": It does not include a monitor, mouse or keyboard, all of which are necessary. I see also no windows installation included in that fee which will be necessary to play any games. They are hiding additional costs. Not to mention even if you could build that, you're only going to be playing the latest games for like... 3 years before upgrades become necessary. Factoring in a copy of Windows 10 alone brings you up another $90 (and I am being generous and not giving the $120+ prices I can find). Cheapo mouse and keyboard is another $15. Then a monitor is another 70+. And now you're up to about another $175 on top of your $340-510. Assuming you could amazingly get everything for cheapest, you're still sitting at $515 at best and $685 at worst. You've already paid $100 more than a PS4 and you don't even have a game yet. Meanwhile I have a PS4 and a game at that point. Even if I throw out the monitor, and you use a TV, you're still sitting at $445 which is more than a PS4.

 

Half the crap on there is all opinion or not even true. "Freedom to upgrade when YOU decide"? I got news for you, when your PC can't run the games because it's outdated you have to upgrade. Just like when an Xbox 360 is outdated because an Xbox One is out and you're not getting the latest games. It's literally the same crap in a different wrapper.

 

It also throws in crap that is just illegal to back up the argument such as emulation. While I love it, it's not a legitimate argument for someone who does not want to break the law.

 

The rest is subjective. "More highly rated exclusives"?

 

I try to avoid letting other  people make my arguments for me.

I think it depends on the question. If we're speaking of consoles, you also would have to factor in cost of television needed to play consoles as you would factor monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. for PC. I think in many cases, people assume one already has all other things and so focuses on tower itself. Price does have to be adjusted according to what an individual has. In a way, I suppose PCs have a hidden fee, but it shouldn't be forgotten that, with exception to WiiU, you must pay 50-60USD yearly to play online on consoles. If one purchased Xbox360 Premium at launch and paid for Xbox Live every year until this year, that would be 400USD for the console and 600USD for online access (though I suppose counter argument to that would be whether 1000USD PC would have been able to run games at about 30FPS at least for 10 years).

 

As a side note it's quite possible to build a fairly powerful computer with limited budget... provided that one is willing to risk shopping for used parts. If it turns out all parts you purchased actually work, then that is great and you managed to get a bit more performance with your money. If not then that's part of the risk unfortunately.

 

That's the not point, I said there's few exclusives (like three big ones for the PS4), not none.

 

Keep in mind this is coming from a collector and I own like 20 consoles and well over 1,000 games between them so I'm not talking as a PC elitist. The new consoles just don't have the exclusive power the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era (or even PS3/360/Wii era) had anymore.

Still. Assuming that PC had all games available on consoles except one, to many individuals that one game may be enough for them to play on console rather than PC because they have strong enough interest in it. Certain platforms may have X number of games, but it may not matter if specific game(s) aren't available to play. Initially, I purchased Wii some years ago just to play SSBB.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Luna the Great

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

 

Still. Assuming that PC had all games available on consoles except one, to many individuals that one game may be enough for them to play on console rather than PC because they have strong enough interest in it. Certain platforms may have X number of games, but it may not matter if specific game(s) aren't available to play. Initially, I purchased Wii some years ago just to play SSBB.

 

Which I'm not arguing, I'm arguing that overall there's far less exclusive power than previous gens unless someone just really wants a single game THAT BAD. 

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,003]

Which I'm not arguing, I'm arguing that overall there's far less exclusive power than previous gens unless someone just really wants a single game THAT BAD. 

I've been reading the conversation between you and Envy and there's a... disconnect? Perhaps one platform have a large number of exclusives and that does give that platform an advantage in terms of variety but to a certain degree. In terms of exclusives, I would agree more with the notion that whether one platform is superior to another is ultimately dependent on one's own preference of games; it's subjective.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Luna the Great

[Twilight Dirac 721]

I too am also curious where this "more PC exclusives" fact comes from as well... There is entire libraries of console games that never got ported to PC. Nearly half the games on the N64 didn't. What do exclusives just stop counting after a certain time? I'm pretty sure Mario for the NES never got ported, or 90% of the NES library... Even if PCs are getting more exclusives than they used to, they have a long way to go before they catch up. Exclusives from consoles that are not being made anymore don't just suddenly stop counting you know.

 

Back in the SNES and Genesis era, each console and the PC had their own library that was separate and exclusive from the other systems.   At this time, whatever system that had the biggest library would necessarily have the most exclusives.  However, as time has progressed all the video game platforms have become increasingly homogenized.  Most major Xbox and Playstation titles are now shared across the Xbox, Playstation and the PC.  The outlier here is Nintendo, whose library still remains largely exclusive, but the tradeoff is that Nintendo consoles cannot be used to play anything but their own exclusives, even the major releases that appear on every other system are absent on Nintendo consoles.  There are still Xbox and Playstation exclusives, but they are mostly a token presence, while the PC still retains a vast library that cannot be played on any of the console systems.

 

Further adding to the PC library is backwards compatibility.  In order to play your old Playstation, Xbox or Nintendo games you must hang onto all your old systems, while a modern PC can still run video games released in the 1980s.  Further compounding this advantage is the use of emulators, which gives the PC access to game libraries that used to be exclusive, including the aforementioned SNES and Genesis.  So yes, the PC does now have the largest number of games available for it.  Whether its the games you actually want is still a matter of taste, but its definitely giving you access to the largest range of them.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Envy 6,202]

That's the not point, I said there's few exclusives (like three big ones for the PS4), not none.

 

Keep in mind this is coming from a collector and I own like 20 consoles and well over 1,000 games between them so I'm not talking as a PC elitist. The new consoles just don't have the exclusive power the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era (or even PS3/360/Wii era) had anymore. 

 

This is not our discussion. You said that the PC can replace consoles, and I'm saying that for some people that's not true, because they like exclusive franchises on those consoles. I never said anything about the amount of exclusives on the consoles, that is irrelevant.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

This is not our discussion. You said that the PC can replace consoles, and I'm saying that for some people that's not true, because they like exclusive franchises on those consoles. I never said anything about the amount of exclusives on the consoles, that is irrelevant.

 

Yes, it can very much replace consoles as long as the exclusives aren't an issue for you because there's like a 95% overlap between PC and the big two. 

[Envy 6,202]

Yes, it can very much replace consoles as long as the exclusives aren't an issue for you because there's like a 95% overlap between PC and the big two. 

 

Well, too bad, because those exclusives do matter. To me, and plenty of others.

 

As I've said plenty of times, it's about games that we like, it's not about the amount of exclusives. I'm not throwing away playing franchises that I enjoy playing.

 

Why can't you just accept that for a number of people the PC can not 'replace' consoles - including PS4 and Xbox One? Opinions. That's all this is. It doesn't hurt you for other people to enjoy things you don't.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

Well, too bad, because those exclusives do matter. To me, and plenty of others.

 

As I've said plenty of times, it's about games that we like, it's not about the amount of exclusives. I'm not throwing away playing franchises that I enjoy playing.

 

Why can't you just accept that for a number of people the PC can not 'replace' consoles - including PS4 and Xbox One? Opinions. That's all this is. It doesn't hurt you for other people to enjoy things you don't.

 

You act like I'm saying things that I'm clearing not. It's ultimately up to each individual how they choose to game and I'm only stating the objective strengths of the PC platform and that the number of platform exclusives is shrinking for about everyone but Nintendo. Hell, I even plan to get a PS4 and WiiU as soon as the price drops a bit on all that stuff second-hand because I'm a collector.

 

It could replace them just like a car can replace a truck. The key thing here here is which thing comes on-top in the benfits-to-sacrifices ratio for each person.

[Guest]

 

 

The new consoles were horribly outdated out of the gate, as demostrated when the 750 (a sub $150 card that can easily be used to upgrade a store-bought desktop with a big enough case and the right ports to a gaming system) came out a few months after the PS4/Xbone and was already a console killer. 

 

"Horribly outdated" I think is a bit of an exaggeration. 

 

 

We are talking about negliable differences that the average person is not even going to see unless they are enthusiasts. To say they are "outdated" out of the gate is kind of a lie. Most people's PCs are running on last year's parts. Not everyone buys the new CPU when it comes out. Hell my CPU is like 3 gens old now. My CPU is far from "outdated" though because it can still perform.

 

 

 

That's the not point, I said there's few exclusives (like three big ones for the PS4), not none.

 

Yeah... If you compare it to the huge list of PC exclusives that include tons of indie games and lots of other games. When people talk about exclusives they are talking about exclusives that people usually give a damn about. Just because I have 200 indie titles that rarely sell and no one really plays doesn't make it better. In terms of AAA titles, PC exclusives are kind of slim pickings. If you are into the exclusive scene on PC, you are mostly going indie.

 

 

 

For those of you saying "hurr durr cheap PC part lists don't include a monitor!" do you include the price of a TV in the console's cost? And you can use literally any monitor with a PC. Have an old 1440x900 monitor lying around? Or what about a 1024x768 one? Go ahead, use it! There's nothing keeping you from using them aside from input and output ports on your GPU and the monitor.

 

My point with that argument is that it's misleading. It's ASSUMING people already have the stuff lying around. On top of this, it does not include a windows installation either. You are not going to be doing much gaming without one of those. Most people who try to claim that PC gaming is "cheaper" than console gaming will purposely disclude things that are going to be necessary to get up and running to try and make the price look lower.

 

 

 

I think it depends on the question. If we're speaking of consoles, you also would have to factor in cost of television needed to play consoles as you would factor monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. for PC.

 

If you don't have a television you wouldn't be buying a console. While you can use a television for your PC, a LOT of people do not actually know that. However everyone knows you need a television to play a console.

 

 

 

I think in many cases, people assume one already has all other things and so focuses on tower itself. Price does have to be adjusted according to what an individual has. In a way, I suppose PCs have a hidden fee, but it shouldn't be forgotten that, with exception to WiiU, you must pay 50-60USD yearly to play online on consoles.

 

I actually have to knock consoles for a minute here. I own the Wii U, and let me just say: the Wii U has some of the WORST hidden fees of them all. Yes, online is free, but you buy the system for $350, then you are more or less going to NEED an external hard drive because your 32GB of storage is nothing if you actually plan on getting DLC or using the virtual console. Then you NEED a wiimote which is not included and if you didn't already own the Wii you need to dump money into that and a num chuk because some games REQUIRE it. Then you need to buy rechargable batteries for the wiimote because they do not come with it, but at the end of the day, you end up paying a little more than a PS4.

 

That being said, the online fee to play on PSN or Xbox Live hardly brings the price close to PCs.

 

 

 

If one purchased Xbox360 Premium at launch and paid for Xbox Live every year until this year, that would be 400USD for the console and 600USD for online access (though I suppose counter argument to that would be whether 1000USD PC would have been able to run games at about 30FPS at least for 10 years).

 

Exactly, and if you are a smart shopper you just wouldn't buy live during times where you are playing a lot of single player.

 

 

 

As a side note it's quite possible to build a fairly powerful computer with limited budget... provided that one is willing to risk shopping for used parts. If it turns out all parts you purchased actually work, then that is great and you managed to get a bit more performance with your money. If not then that's part of the risk unfortunately.

 

The risk is much higher though. Few places sell parts with the promise that they will work if they are used. Whereas consoles you get at least a small warranty from used console sellers.

 

 

 

Still. Assuming that PC had all games available on consoles except one, to many individuals that one game may be enough for them to play on console rather than PC because they have strong enough interest in it. Certain platforms may have X number of games, but it may not matter if specific game(s) aren't available to play. Initially, I purchased Wii some years ago just to play SSBB.

 

Exactly! The point is exclusives that matter, not total exclusives. No one would give a damn if you had Duke Nukem Forever as an exclusive.

 

 

 

Further adding to the PC library is backwards compatibility.  In order to play your old Playstation, Xbox or Nintendo games you must hang onto all your old systems, while a modern PC can still run video games released in the 1980s.  Further compounding this advantage is the use of emulators, which gives the PC access to game libraries that used to be exclusive, including the aforementioned SNES and Genesis.  So yes, the PC does now have the largest number of games available for it.  Whether its the games you actually want is still a matter of taste, but its definitely giving you access to the largest range of them.

 

Okay we're talking solely LEGAL game acquisition. If the game was not intended to be run on it, it does not count, otherwise the PSP now has the entire SNES, NES, Genesis libraries. And now Android has more games than a majority of platforms through emulation.

 

 

 

Yes, it can very much replace consoles as long as the exclusives aren't an issue for you because there's like a 95% overlap between PC and the big two. 

 

95% overlap? Slow down there tex. It's only been 2 years into the current gen, I think it's a little early to assume that this will remain this way. Last gen  there was over 500 exclusives across platform that PCs did not get. It's too early to assume that PC will continue to get releases so much that it'll make a 95% overlap.

 

That being said that's a poor argument. We're talking about games. Fun. Entertainment. You're more or less telling people "so long as you stop having fun with those games and start having fun with these games instead, no problem". Consoles will in fact NEVER be obsolete because the need will ALWAYS be there. There are ALWAYS going to be people who do not want to go through the hassle of building a gaming PC or the price of buying one. There will ALWAYS be people who care about the console exclusives. There will ALWAYS be people who prefer the controller to the mouse and keyboard.

 

Console gaming is changing, not going away.

[PROJECT: Simon 3,955]

I think they're both all the same, but in my opinion, I think consoles are better~! =)=) <3 <3 Easy to use and more comfortable~?! :DD <3 <3        

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

In terms of AAA titles, PC exclusives are kind of slim pickings. If you are into the exclusive scene on PC, you are mostly going indie.

 

 

 

Really? Total War, Starcraft, Wargame, Hearts of Iron, Cities Skylines (on Xbox One? Well done them, then, if they can do it) Silent Hunter, ARMA... and those are only 'really good' games that I actually have. The list is as long as it is pointless. Games are almost always exclusive to PC because there isn't a console they would work well on (no hotkeys being a major issue with standard controllers, and because a mouse is the best way of doing certain operations) and / or there isn't a market.

 

By contrast, consoles have exclusives to in order to sell more consoles. I don't honestly see why a game should be exclusive to a specific console if there is both the market and the functionality to support it on another console or PC. Keeping it exclusive just to sell more consoles is really quite vexing, especially when:

 

 

e're talking about games. Fun. Entertainment. You're more or less telling people "so long as you stop having fun with those games and start having fun with these games instead, no problem". Consoles will in fact NEVER be obsolete because the need will ALWAYS be there. There are ALWAYS going to be people who do not want to go through the hassle of building a gaming PC or the price of buying one. There will ALWAYS be people who care about the console exclusives. There will ALWAYS be people who prefer the controller to the mouse and keyboard.

 

 

...there is clearly a market for consoles regardless. I may have left consoles after the GameCube, trading my analogue sticks for hotkeys, and I doubt I will ever go back, but I don't object to them existing.