Is pc gaming dying?

[LordBelial]

PC gaming will never die but here are my reasons for buying a Xbox 360 console this holiday season over building a gaming PC:

1. COST

The Xbox 360 console costs about $400 dollars versus at least $1500 dollars for a gaming PC. No upgrade costs with a console. Yes, yes, I can hear the PC gamers now, “That’s not true because you need to buy a $2500 dollar HDTV for HD gaming with the Xbox 360!” No, you don’t because Microsoft has a $40 dollar VGA cable that allows you to attach your Xbox 360 to a computer monitor.

2. GAMES

Nearly all of the games I wanted to play on my gaming PC are now on the Xbox 360. HL2, COD2, Doom 3, FEAR, PREY, Oblivion, GTA3, Quake 4, they are all there. The only game missing is UT2004 but I can wait for UT2007 on the Xbox 360. Moreover, now I can play Xbox exclusives like Halo 1, 2 and 3 and of course, Gears of War! If God of War 2 is ported to the Xbox 360, it’s a full house for me.

3. ONLINE COMPETITION

Xbox Live, need I say more? Although I haven’t experienced it yet I have yet to see a less than glowing report about Xbox Live. By all accounts it looks like the online Xbox experience will be significantly better than the online PC gaming experience. But do you know what the kicker is for me? The standardized hardware and software ensures to a high degree that I am on a level-playing field with my competition in a game. I agree that the keyboard and mouse is a better control system than a console controller but that is immaterial on Xbox Live.

I also have another personal reason for buying a Xbox 360 over a desktop PC. I NEED a new portable computer for work. I WANT to game. The Xbox 360 allows me to buy a lighter, smaller and CHEAPER portable notebook computer for work. This negates the PC gamers argument about how a desktop PC can do more than a Xbox 360 because a Xbox 360 plus a notebook computer can do everything a desktop PC can do AND MORE FOR CHEAPER!

Agreed. Nerdy pc gamers respsonce " LIKE OMGZORS!! THO!! A PC CAN DO 34389743 gigaflops of data a second than a consol noob machine can do!! :-( )

 

[TUB]

Just relax and enjoy playing games. Don't worry about what is going to replace what? It's a matter of what you can afford and go from there. As for those who feels little insecure as to the "Dying Of PC Gaming". Ask yourself this question "Do you see people bring their console (PS2, XBox360 or PS3,...etc) to any LAN party?" There you have it. Console gaming are mainly for kids and average user, not for hardcore gamers... period.

Relax and Enjoy!

My Rig:
* Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (No OC)
* Zalman CNPS 7000B-Cu LED Cooler
* ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB DDR3
* ASUS P5B-VM with FragBox II MicroATX case
* 2x1GB, PC2-4300, CL=3-3-3-8, Geil Ultra Low Latency
* Ultra 550W ATX (Ultra X2 550-Watt with UV & SLI ready
* Lite-On 16x DVD/CD Writer with LightScribe
* TrackIR 4 Pro
* Cougar HOTAS
* Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP LCD
=============================
"One Can Never Have Enough"

Cheers! 8)

 

[LordBelial]

If you truly believe that the next gen consoles are better technologically than high end computers, then you have no idea how the architecture of their components work. The quick an easy comparison, many game developers have said they would have been much happier with a 2.0ghz A64 or Pentium 4 because they would be able to get better performance out of the CPU's. The reason for games running better on less hardware for consoles is because the games are made specifically for the fixed hardware in those consoles and the consoles do not have as much proprietary software to run in the background of the games, hence requiring less memory. When game developers make a game for consoles they test FPS rates when making the games on the exact hardware. When they make a game for PC's they make it to where the games will run better on newer hardware, if not hardware that isn't out yet, so is to prolong the lifespan of that specific game on PC hardware. Overall, PC > Console and is not dying what so ever! My computer runs CoD 2 at full res (1280x1024) and all high settings much better than a Xbox 360, which if you have an eye for it can tell that is suffers a lot of frame loss during gameplay.

Best,

3Ball

What did i say...who cares the reason WHY the consols look better or play better "but but pc has stuff running in the background too!!" , well, no sh!t, which is just another of many reasons why pc gaming is just going down hill more and more each day, along with rising prices.

 

[samir_nayanajaad]

Relax and Enjoy!

this guys got the right idea

 

[samir_nayanajaad]

If you truly believe that the next gen consoles are better technologically than high end computers, then you have no idea how the architecture of their components work. The quick an easy comparison, many game developers have said they would have been much happier with a 2.0ghz A64 or Pentium 4 because they would be able to get better performance out of the CPU's. The reason for games running better on less hardware for consoles is because the games are made specifically for the fixed hardware in those consoles and the consoles do not have as much proprietary software to run in the background of the games, hence requiring less memory. When game developers make a game for consoles they test FPS rates when making the games on the exact hardware. When they make a game for PC's they make it to where the games will run better on newer hardware, if not hardware that isn't out yet, so is to prolong the lifespan of that specific game on PC hardware. Overall, PC > Console and is not dying what so ever! My computer runs CoD 2 at full res (1280x1024) and all high settings much better than a Xbox 360, which if you have an eye for it can tell that is suffers a lot of frame loss during gameplay.

Best,

3Ball

What did i say...who cares the reason WHY the consols look better or play better "but but pc has stuff running in the background too!!" , well, no sh!t, which is just another of many reasons why pc gaming is just going down hill more and more each day, along with rising prices.


one thing about the cost you don't need to buy the $600 video card you can get a card that I would say is as good as any console card or better for around 180 bucks now. you don't need a $1500 cpu heck to play games $200 to $300 will have you well covered for any game. Ram also doesn't need the best of the best some value ram will do just fine.

one other note on the hardware pc's can reuse some parts like the case, or psu, fans and heatsinks, keyboard mouse, ps3 xbox 360 dont think thats going to happen

one more thing I have no idea if consoles use dx10 or openGL but id imagine they use something very smiler and you know what I bet they don't use something that is as up to date as dx10. I know dx10 is not out yet but very soon to be

 

[Curious1]

My point is you are NOT paying more to get a better product you are paying more on overlapping technology. That was the first sentence in my response and you totally ignored it. Let me try to put it to you another way. You have a gaming PC, a Xbox 360 and a notebook computer, a MacBook Pro from your description. You can game and work on your PC, game on your Xbox 360 and game and work on your notebook computer. Do you see the redundancy? Do you see the IMHO wasted money? Why do you have the Xbox 360 and a gaming PC? Or why do you have a gaming notebook and a gaming PC? You spent $400 for the Xbox 360, $2000 for the notebook and I am being generous here $1000 for the gaming PC. I plan on spending $400 for the Xbox 360 and $1600 for the notebook, a MacBook by the way. Can’t you see that you are paying at least $1400 extra for practically the same functionality? Is limited gaming on the go worth all that extra money? It’s not about the price/performance ratio or better hardware it is about not wasting money.

 

[jaguarskx]

Meh,

I like PC gaming especially since strategy games like Civilization IV is very unlikely to come out for the XBox. X3: Reunion would have come out for the XBox 360, but Egosoft cancelled it. Good thing since the number of sectors to explore would have been smaller.

Anywaste, that's just me. I don't think I need to spend money on two seperate gaming systems.

 

[MayDay94]

i'm a pc AND console gamer. owned an xbox since launch (6 years ago) and just bought a 360. also, i have a 65" HDTV which i bought for tv (football) and movies. i would own it without gaming, but games are amazing on it. however, my current pc (see sig) is nothing special but puts out better graphics than 360 already. madden on 360 is plagued by aliasing - jaggies galore. cod2 on 360 is nice but there is no ansiotropic filtering. it looks better on my generic gaming pc i built. my 6800gt can do at least 2xaa and 8x af on any game i have except maybe CoH. my pc setup with lcd cost about 1k while 360 is 400 (740 with same lcd and vga adapter). graphics are better on pc but consoles are easier (pop in disc and go). i prefer shooters, strategy on pc and sports, fighters, action (gta) and party games on consoles. console companies lose money on hardware and make up on software since they have monopoly. you pay more for pc but get cheaper games and user-created mods (hello counter-strike and DoD). to each his own, but consoles aren't way better than pc games. it's an easier experience and much better when friends stop by or when the wife wants to play something with me, but bf2 and cs rule on pc. not to mention, company of heroes has me drooling over graphics and game-play on my pc.

 

[Synergy6]

To my knowledge you can't torrent a free console game.

Your knowledge is wrong. Although, if the game was "free", you don't really need to torrent it.

What did i say...who cares the reason WHY the consols look better or play better

Of course, to ask WHY, you have to first ask IF. And my answer to the above would be a resounding no.

Also interesting is this pervasive view that you spend $1000+ on a PC, and all you can do on it is play games. WTH? Can the Xbox360 encode my DVDs? Process my video editing? Compile large programs from code? Use advanced CAD apps? Etc. Oh, wait, it can't And all those examples are greatly helped by a better CPU, memory, hard drive etc. (The situation may change if the PS3 gets better Linux code, but that's another story for another time.)

Synergy6

 

[fishboi]

Personally I think the quality of PC games (experience wise) has deteriorated over the last few years. It's been a while since we had a massive blockbuster, and even now, the time between blockbusters has just been getting greater. I think developers are not focusing on crunching out games for PCs, which is kind of sad. It's such a great platform to create whatever you want.

PC's by far outstip consoles with respect to experience. With regards to quality of games in numbers, I'm not so sure.

 

[Vash-HT]

You must not have followed this thread, it is about gaming, not what other tasks a PC can do. Sure its a plus for a PC to be able to do all those things, but does it make the games any better? Of course it doesn't. I have a very good gaming PC, and soon I'm getting a 360. I've ALWAYS been a PC and console gamer, mainly because both have their own style of games that I want. Some people on here claim keyboard/mouse is a better control setup(allowing for more complex control blah blah), but there are console games that cannot be played with a keyboard and mouse. One good example are fighting games. Try playing a fighter like GGX2 on a keyboard, it just doesn't work. I also feel a keyboard/mouse is much much better for a FPS, each system has their own advantages when it comes to controls. Also, a lot of people on here are comparing games like COD2 for PC/360, saying that COD2 looks better on the PC. Even though I agree with you, I don't think your points are very valid. If you take the same game engine and turn up the resolution on your PC, of course it will look better, so games that are produced for both the 360 and PC using the same 3d engine will always look better on PC. That being said, I think the 360 shows its graphical power mroe in games that are exclusive for it, liek GoW. Even though I have a very pwoerful gaming PC(x1900xtx, X2 4800, 2gb ram), I don't think I could run that game on full settings if it was ported. It looks a lot better than any PC game I have played, and even though it will eventually be surpassed by PC games graphically, you're still going to have spend a ton on hardware to be able to play games like it. Anyway, consoles are by far cheaper for gamers, which is why they are becoming so popular, but PC gaming will never die.

 

[burn-e86]

of course there is one major point that people have failed to mention, and that is that consoles nowadays are sold at a lost. e.g. the manfacturing cost of a 360 is about £200 more then it is sold for, for sony the PS3 looses about £400+ per unit, the only way it can make a profit is if sony manage to shift about 10 games per PS3 unit. thats not ofcourse including the 2nd hand market, though it might not seem like many, £50 * 10 = £500. + whatever else to actually get a profit.
which is why nowadays is such a massive risk to sony and microsoft.(for each game sold sony/microsoft will recive a cut)
unfortunatly computers dont have to same advantage since there is no unification of manufacturers.
It is a completely different marketing approach with means it is incredibly difficult to really respond to what is better for price/perfomance/value etc. thats one of the annoying things about these comparing threads.

 

[SciPunk]

If all you want to do is run shoot-em-up games, then the consoles are the way to go.

But notice that the prices of those are creaping up higher and higher too. And that's even with the voodoo ecconomics of console systems whereby the manufactureres are selling the systems at a loss.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the ridiculous button combos necessary to do all the fancy moves. I'd rather use a full size keyboard and customized tool bars.

Due to their open archetechture, PC systems can be cusomized to fit your budget and your needs. Consoles are "one size fits all"... or go to another platform.

Also, PC games can be patched over time. Ever hear of a patch for an X-Box game? If there is a flaw, you're SOL.

Despite the rants and raves, the fact are what they are. Consoles are more cost effective for video games because they are designed for that purpose, and that purpose only. You can't run SQL Server, or SAS, or P-Spice, or Mathematica, or control robotic assembly lines with your X-Box. If you don't want all that general purpose functionality, then by all means DON'T PAY FOR IT. Some of us want to do a bit more than X-X-X-Triangle-Triangle-Square-Square to do a back flip kick.

 

[Zorak]

Why is it that threads like this one keep spawning? People have been predicting the end of PC gaming pretty much every year since PC gaming became a serious form of competition to video arcades and consoles, and yet it has managed to stay alive. The fact of the matter is that PC gaming is not simply going to die no matter what executives at Sony (or any other console manufacturing company) says. The reason behind this is simply because some games just work better on PC than on any other type of platform, and conversely some games work better on non-PC platforms. Bearing that in mind, I think it is just stupid to worry about the viability of PC gaming (all quality considerations aside). People may say that the quality of current games is leading people to switch from PC to consoles, and while this may be true to a certain extent, that doesn't spell the end. If anything, it ensures a ressurgence of PC gaming later when the publishers see lost profits and then produce more innovative titles in an attempt to recover lost market share.

I have tried not to contribute to threads like these for a long time simply because I thought saying anything would simply perpetuate them. However, seeing as how remaining silent is not making them go away, I figure 'what the hell?'. Anyways, that is my opinion on the matter, and hopefully my post will deter at least one or two 'is pc gaming dead' threads from starting.

-Zorak

 

[towely]

you know what, i dont care, i dont visually see a difference between 1024, 1280, or 1600x1200..let alone going up that high.

You lose all credibility here. I would get to an opthamologist ASAP.

 

[fishboi]

..... :roll: :roll: then to spell it out - is PC gaming dying? IMO - yes, but very slowly. Is it dead - NO WAY! Is it growing - well what do you think? Growth is coming from consoles. PC gaming is stagnant to slow bleeding. We need more juice in PC games, which I think can come from a new genre that is so graphic intensive (3D games for eg.) that you will NEED a PC to play. Just my $0.02. Plz gaming developers, bring back the SimCity ADs of its time for the year 2007 !!!!!!

 

[fishboi]

.... to move off the railways a little - one blockbuster I havent played is World of Warcraft, for which a PC is required. Is that game worth $15 a month and losing your girlfriend? I've heard horror stories.

 

[fishboi]

Another note: Over Thanksgiving dinner I discussed this exact same issue with a lot of younger cousins and their friends. They all have PCs/laptops etc. They all can game with them, but they buy consoles because of the "IT'S COOL" factor. I dont know whether they choose consoles vs. PCs based on performance, but more of that it's cool if you have one. They all used consoles to game. I couldnt understand it and they didnt know why they just didnt use their PCs either. Just another thought.

 

[Synergy6]

You must not have followed this thread, it is about gaming, not what other tasks a PC can do. Sure its a plus for a PC to be able to do all those things, but does it make the games any better?

Yes, I have followed the thread. You could almost say I follow every thread I post in.

Jibes aside, I stand by my point. Numerous posts have been along the lines of "OMG, I SPEND $5000 FOR BETTER GWAPHICS". Sometimes intentionally sarcastic, sometimes just moronic. I was pointing out the problem with the comparison of costs.

In the end of the day, the comparison is between apples and oranges. As my maths teacher always liked to pontificate about, such things just can't be evenly compared. Also, I can't see me enjoying FM2007, Medieval 2, FEAR, Company of Heroes etc etc on consoles. Especially not with the option of alt-tabbing into whatever else I happen to be doing.

Synergy6

 

[Vash-HT]

I agree that PC's have much much more functionality than consoles probably ever will, but unfortunately some people place a lot of focus ont he gaming aspect of their PC. If i did not game on my PC I could've spent around 400$ and do everything else I do on it now. I don't see why its hard for people to realize that some people's PC's are mainly gaming machines. Of course I do other things on it, but nothing else I do makes my PC sweat at all. So for a person like me, where gaming is the main function of my PC, it is of some concern that I'm spending so much just for better graphics.

I do agree with you that games such as medieval 2 or CoH would not be as enjoyable on a console. The onyl genres i really play on my PC anymore are RTS and FPS, with RTS being the main one.

The thing that gets me the most is a lot of people love to limit themself to either PC or console, or in the case of consoles limit themselves to one company. I will always play console and PC games, I like different genres on both setups, and I'm not going to turn down a game because I can't alt tab out of it.

 

[KTev]

This whole discussion is as pointless as, Which is better intel or amd? It seems to be over ran by fan boys that know little about what they are talking about.

In almost every aspect pcs make a better system except one, convenience. Don't underestimate the power of convenience. Just look at the ipod market compared to sacd or dvd-audio market.

 

[purplerat]

The versitilaty of a computer does play a role in PC gaming. By being able to do so many different things with my PC I can justify spending as much $ as I do on my computer (minus the video card) regardless of wether I game or not. The CPU, RAM, Mobo, case, hard drive, dvd burner, monitor etc, etc, would cost me the same either way. So the only cost I really consider for gaming is the graphics card, which if I simply spend the equivalent to the cost of each new console system, which I dont, I would be far ahead of of any console. A PS3 retails for $600, but realisticly if you want one now it would cost more. for $650 I could buy a 8800GTX and have better graphics then a PS3.
Also in my opinion a PC can do ANYTHING a console can do, but a console still does not have all the gaming capabilities of a PC. Not only does a PC offer better controls but I personally own both 360 and Playstation style controllers for my PC for when I want to play games that are more console oriented.

 

[mars_THoC]

Listen, im not gonna go list EVERY pc game i play, but for yuor information, i do play battlefield 2, and 2142, along with prey and others. and i never disagreed that consols werent good for fps..however, the graphics are still much better. im not talking about upgradability, im not talking about controls, im not talking about nerdy hardware specs, im talking about GRAPHICS!! didnt you idiots read my post, or do you skim threw it cuz your such an angry pc gamer at the truth? how could you not be angry that your paying 650 bucks for the newest card, 1500 bucks for a ****** processor! 300 bucks for 2 sticks of ram that usually just break. i would be, unless your mommies pay for everything in which you arnt angry about the money part.

LOL again! I own my business. Its a tax deduction. I need em so I buy a new machine almost every year. Smart buying does go a long way too.
When I buy my 6 yr old a ps3 or Wii for his birthday I'll be the judge of graphics. I find it VERY hard to believe that consloes are better. How many kids do you know with a dlp or lcd tv? I bet the major of xbox's and ps3 are on a cheap 27" rca's.

You shoulda put your flame suit on before you post such tripe.
mars<----pull's pin and tosses.

 

[LordBelial]

Listen, im not gonna go list EVERY pc game i play, but for yuor information, i do play battlefield 2, and 2142, along with prey and others. and i never disagreed that consols werent good for fps..however, the graphics are still much better. im not talking about upgradability, im not talking about controls, im not talking about nerdy hardware specs, im talking about GRAPHICS!! didnt you idiots read my post, or do you skim threw it cuz your such an angry pc gamer at the truth? how could you not be angry that your paying 650 bucks for the newest card, 1500 bucks for a ****** processor! 300 bucks for 2 sticks of ram that usually just break. i would be, unless your mommies pay for everything in which you arnt angry about the money part.

LOL again! I own my business. Its a tax deduction. I need em so I buy a new machine almost every year. Smart buying does go a long way too.
When I buy my 6 yr old a ps3 or Wii for his birthday I'll be the judge of graphics. I find it VERY hard to believe that consloes are better. How many kids do you know with a dlp or lcd tv? I bet the major of xbox's and ps3 are on a cheap 27" rca's.

You shoulda put your flame suit on before you post such tripe.
mars<----pull's pin and tosses.

your right, i dont know many people with a dip or lcd tv...thats because the fact they use a 40 dollar conversion kit to hook a 360 to a beautful 20.1-22 inch lcd monitor.

 

[doolittle]

how could you not be angry that your paying 650 bucks for the newest card

One reason, it will benefit your currently existing PC games with higher performance be it higher frame rates, details, or resolution.

From what I understand, a new console investment only benefits new purchases since the software has to be written to take advantage.