PC vs Console Gaming (Article)

Found this article pretty interesting so I thought I'd share it. Apologies if its already been posted, a search yielded nothing.
Destructoid - Matthew Blevins's Community Blog

 

Nice article. There were made a few big assumptions, but nevertheless it is good.

 

I do not agree with his assessments.

Especially about AAA titles, aside from World of Warcraft, I can't think of another MMORPG or RTS game considered a AAA title like the recent console ports.

I also do not agree these games are being developed concurrently across all platforms. Especially with Unreal Engine, these games are obviously designed and made for console first, then PC.
- How is a DX9 console port running on a very efficient UE3, does Borderlands General Knoxx run like such garbage on PC?!?!?!?

Look at BC2 which supposedly wasn't a console port. PC users are plauged with issues. From hardcore to casual players, I have not met a single BC2 player that didn't have a laundry list of issues. Yet PS3 players have few to no issues.

Cost of console vs PC? Is he on crack? To buy a PC to use for office work, internet etc now costs $100 for a laptop on sale. How does the extra money between $100 and $300 for a console, equal enough for a gaming rig sufficient to run AC2?
- The guy mentions AC2 and my G73jh can barely run that game with decent framerate. The game has atrocious jagged lines and the worst screen tearing. Having to crank up AA and v-sync just to get the game looking decent, the framerate is terrible.

My gripe isn't that PC Gaming isn't as popular as console. I don't really care, never did. But frankly every game I've played recently oozed of terrible console port. MMORPG and RTS seem to literally be the last bastion for games made for PC. And with the success of RPG games on consoles, I soon think that the Witcher 2 may be one of the few RPG games really tailored to PC Gamers and what we will see from Bethesda and BioWare will just be one of many console ports.

I think the author of that article is living in dreamland.

 

/shrug I agree with him...

I can't imagine playing most non-sport, non scrolling fighter, non-mario-clone on a console any time soon.

Playing FPS on a console controller with auto-aim is just plain horrible.
Playing RTS or RPGs on a console is an exercise in frustration.

 

I agree with the article, consoles have a place though. FAILBox 360 in a garbage can, and PS3 under my 52" TV.

 

It doesnt that cost much to build a PC capable of gaming at a level much, much higher than a console. So he is correct in that regard.

 

Spending $100 on a laptop will cause more money spent on medical bills due to hair loss and high blood pressure

And how can you not run AC2 with decent framerates? I ran it fine, played through the whole game with minimal lag. Sure I didn't have it at 1920x1080, but it was definitely not as bad as you claim.

 

Hmm actually ziddy i've had 0 issues with BC2 lol, (Except supposed mouse smoothing but play dead space and it'l put bc2 mouse smoothing/lag to shame haha.)

PCs eat all consoles, 360 or PS3, there all the same to me

What really effects the two is the cost, therefore they are both out of each others leagues.

 

Meh, obvious arguments. What about how the PC gaming landscape is changing. I mean EA bought that Farmville company for mega millions. What does that say about PC games and the shift in the market?

He did touch on digital distribution but there are lots of examples of digital distribution on all the consoles. Even Nintendo today announced a vow to make better downloads available on their systems.

I think if you like gaming you probably play on more than one platform already and you probably take advantage of each platform's strengths. There's no sense in beating up on consoles because they are not PCs and vice verse. If you think consoles have had a seriously detrimental effect on PC gaming and vow to hate them forever... oh well, enjoy your hatred, they aren't going away.

 

Good article. I've seen my share of changes wrt PC gaming since I jumped on board in 1992. Yeah consoles have more exposure for sure on the retail level but I find I enjoy PC gaming more than console gaming and this comes from someone who owns every console currently made including portables.

Where PC games still shine and it's because of the target audience is simulations. I love DCS: Black Shark, Flight Sim X, rFactor, WTCC and other racing titles only on PC's. There's a certain level of realism that's only found on PC based games like Black Shark.

OTOH I do enjoy console games for what they are but I do see more games coming to the PC, now that Steam is an established entity in the gaming community and the upstart OnLive service. What really has hurt PC gaming over the years is what has hurt the Sony PSP is piracy.

Hopefully a good solution can be found in the future that doesn't infringe on the legitimate customers while protecting the Publishers assets.

 

I think the impact piracy really has is all too often exaggerated. It's also quite hard to get good data on the issue, because you can't really collect data on what the sales would've been like if not for piracy.

 

Consoles will never be able to graphically keep up with higher end desktop PCs. Consoles are to be the "affordable" solution.The ATi GPU in the 360 is basically a desktop X1900XTX-X1950XTX. The PS3's nVidia RSX is roughly equal to a desktop 7900GTX. Both flagship GPUs of their time, but terribly lacking by today's standards. The processors in both systems are plenty capable. The 360's processor is a tri-core IBM, I believe. To this day, the PS3's Cell Processor is crazy hyped. It's an interesting design with quite a bit of potential, but it's too difficult and out of the norm coding-wise on the developmental standpoint. The Cell Processor is insane at precise/exact value number crunching (which is why some will hook several systems together to make a pseudo-supercomputer), but it lacks in other areas.

All in all, both systems are still capable years later. However, both are lacking in comparison to a gaming desktop, whether it be a $1,000 machine or a $5,000 machine. The NEXT generation of consoles should be interesting, though. They'll likely be pretty pricey, too.

 

Agreed and it makes it worse when the publisher uses it as an excuse when the game doesn't sell particularly well at retail. You can cry wolf so many times.

But OTOH it is an issue and it's the reason why publishers have gone to great lengths to protect their products including the dreadful constant internet connection to play the game.

I've always thought the best solution to piracy is for the developer to drop software land-mines and hidden bombs when a game is run in cracked mode. One example is Over Flanders Field Phase 3 for Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator 3. If you run the conversion in cracked mode the game starts to do some really strange things. Now that's how you combat piracy.

 

Id def say that console gaming is better, more exclusive deals are cut. That said games look better on a pc, but from what I saw the minimal difference between games this gen is negated. The thing is there hasnt been a big enough leap in graphic technology to justify getting a pc with a better card because lets be honest you'll have the same experience on BFBC2 on a console as you would on a pc, difference is the input but other then that the graphics arent much different, not justifying a 5870 by any means which should technically be leaps and bounds better then the what 7900gt inside the ps3......

Unless there is a video card that does something rediculous like infinite definition, or full blown ray tracing, there is no draw to pc gaming. That said my predicition will be that the market will transform into a portable market. Laptops that are fully equiped, people I believe are looking for more all in one devices, whats better then a ps3?

A laptop that can handle all the same games, has a blu ray player, does your school work, surfs the net efficiently, which there are these rigs out there. Problem is pricing, they are too expensive. Just my 2 cents. I have more but I'll wait to see what people comment in reply.

 

Sure there's exclusive deals, but in that sense it's not just console vs PC, it's 360 vs PS3 vs PC, because there's different exclusives for different consoles. Once you factor in indie games, PC gets a lot more exclusives than either console.

To me, PC is the platform of choice because of the superiority of the mouse and the level of freedom that comes with the PC.

Let me demonstrate with a short story:
Recently, I bought Deus Ex on Steam for $2.50 (a 75% discount). I launched the game and it was what I remembered it to be, but, unsurprisingly, the graphics were disappointing for the modern era. I Googled around the place for information, and I found a nice guide to getting some nice graphics mods for the game. I installed them, fiddled around with some .ini files to get some settings the way I wanted them, and now I've got a nice install of Deus Ex that is a hell of a lot prettier than the original.

Does anyone want to count how many things I did there that you simply cannot do with a console?

 

PC also here is my primary platform, though I own both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. Playing mostly on my 360 though, seen Red Dead Redemption for PS3? A complete joke, looks like a PS2 game compared to the 360 version.

 

Mouse is your input of choice, some people find controllers are better. Like myself, I love my Dual shock 3, I find it tactful and some games for me are better for it, I find button placement better. Theres a controller for ps3 thats half mouse half controller which to me is genius.

The number of games does not mean better exclusive either, Gran Turismo seriies, Metal Gear Solid, so on and so on. Just saying thats more a matter of opinion rather than fact.

And you can get mods for Unreal Tournament on ps3.... Just saying. I get were you com from and I agree that everyone should be playing on a pc, but its cost prohibitive for most.

 

After replaying Tales of Monkey Island on PS3, i miss my PC mouse.
Whats sad is that the PS3 do support Keyboard and Mouse, but none of the game developers seems to care with adding it.

 

/shrug you don't have to hate consoles to not desire to game seriously on them.

I own a PS3... its great for renting spongebob for playing with kids or playing mortal kombat/street fighter while tipsy. It also is very useful as a movie player and music player.

Any game I want to play with any seriousness I will play on a PC.
Why? because I like long-term, thought-out, moddable content that isn't designed for a lower standard of control, hardware, and target market.

 

The thing is, you can just buy a controller for the PC and it will simply be plug 'n' play. If consoles had plug 'n' play mouse and keyboard gaming, that would be a different matter.

My latest post has a nice "short story" on the advantages of PC gaming.

Also, the two upcoming games I'm most interested in right now are Portal 2 and NS2. Granted, both will have console releases, but they're still PC games first and foremost, and that's where the community will be focused.

Some people will take offense to my saying this, but the online experience for PC gaming is simply better than with consoles, mostly because the communications tools available for PC are superior. It's true that both communities have their share of idiots, but the freedom you have with PC makes it easier to find a server that tends to have cool people on it - the ability to host dedicated servers is quite often absent from console releases, and that's far from a small issue. On PC, there's also games like Transformice, which are just great fun to mess around with online. Xbox Live Arcade has some nice offerings as well, but it doesn't have that many good free games.

To summarize - PC is about freedom. Unfortunately, many game publishers hate freedom.

 

You have to realize that those consoles play games at lower resolutions, low settings, and no image quality enhancements like AA/AF. Modern desktops ARE leaps and bounds ahead of the consoles in graphics. Play MW2 on the consoles and then play it on PC with a GTX275 or higher gpu. It's like night and day. Even the newer laptop cards demolish console graphics. There is just no competition.

 

Do we really need to do 'PC vs. Consoles', like once every few months?

This never gets anywhere. Lose the insecurity.

 

Totally agree with you 100%, fact is Console gets better deals. Plain and simple. I agree that the community is better for online gaming, not having to listen to whiney kids all the time is great, private chat with friends on vent is 100 X better.
Fact is the install bases for ps3/360/wii are bigger and that means more money to be made, means more games for those consoles. I wish it was the other way around. Other thing with consoles is you dont have to worry about support, games that say ps3 will play on a ps3 no matter what.

 

Its two different markets really...

Sure, the economy "pregnant rollerskate" car will get you from point A to point B, and it even might be fun in a "cute" sort of way, but it isn't a sportscar and it doesn't control or feel the same way.

Despite how many of the economy cars they make, the sportscar still exists and the market remains for them.

economy car = console
sportscar = PC

 

If you could for me provide a screen shot of both the console version and pc version same place roughly that would be great, but again graphics dont define a game. Doesnt matter how much or little a game looks better on a pc, its not enough to be a ps2 to ps3 difference thats its like OMG my ps3 is incredibley out dated!!!!

 

Metro 2033 is probably the best example where PC is leaps and bounds ahead of consoles in graphics. Have a look at these. I haven't actually played it because I've heard the gameplay is nothing special, though.

In any case, to me PC vs console isn't about graphics so much as the other things I mentioned in my previous post.

 

Metro 2033 does look superb and I can't wait to try it out, but when I mean radically different graphics, I mean something new like a new form of modelling, new lighting system like ray tracing, for the most part its the same modelling, same light, just extra "enhancements" but its still all in the same family of graphics. Im talking about the leap from ps2 to ps3 just as an example, modeling lighting, effect are radically different from the 2 platforms, that qualified for a leap in generation. DX10. DX11. their little improvements but nothing market changing.

 

I agree with this, i however doubt the graphic will be come THAT much better very fast. I think they would rather concentrate on making good gameplay wise games

 

Well, tessellation can make a pretty big visual difference... provided the developers actually make use of the process...

 

The difference between the PS2 and the PS3 is 7 years worth. Considering that Sony is claiming the PS3 will have a 10 year life cycle, the gap is going to get worse and worse, and by the end there will indeed be an enormous leap between the PS3 and the PCs of the time or the PS4.

"Radically different graphics" don't happen suddenly in the PC world; you see gradual improvement over time, which eventually builds up to the huge difference you see between one console and the next. Tessellation is quite a significant new feature, and it will be combined with more powerful graphics cards and new technologies in the coming years.

Here's another important point - if not for the gradual improvement in PC games, console graphics would develop much slower. It's much harder for video card manufacturers and game developers to progress the state of the art if the hardware has to remain the same for 10 years.

 

While I agree that graphics don't define a game, they become more important the better the game is. If a game has superb gameplay, campaign, and multiplayer then all that is left to judge it by is graphics! That's why I used MW2 as an example. Same could be said with BC2, MW1, Halo series (if you're into the series), etc. I'll try my best to find you a comparison, though.

 

The graphics argument is pointless. You don't need a science degree to argue this point. Christ they still make PS2 games and they still sell them. Logan's Shadow came out this month for PS2. My best friend just bought RB2 for PS2 like a month or so ago. And everytime I talk about a new PC game with him he moans about what kind of PITA it is with PC games.

And as I said earlier, most gamers actually play on multiple platforms. So I am not sure why these threads keep coming up for people to chime in and flame away at why PC is so superior blah blah blah.

So really the best platform is the one(s) that meet your wants/needs. I mean an F1 car isn't going to do me squat with my 40 min. commute everyday to/from work. So for all it's mechanical and technical prowess it can just sit there and look pretty. A lot of good that would do me?

 

First and foremost, I play on multiple platforms and enjoy them all. I also don't really see any flaming in this thread anywhere. I do, however, see some decent discussion from both "sides," though. Both consoles and PC have their strengths and weaknesses, both have a definitive place, and neither are going anywhere at all anytime soon. I just enjoy a conversation/debate every now and then.

 

Really? Jeez I had no idea. Seems you're right. Well I'll probably skip that one then or at least wait till it's really cheap. Too bad.

See this is exactly the kind of high & mighty attitude I am talking about. But to each their own.

It is worth noting there are plenty of "serious" games on consoles. However if the only thing I looked for in a game was modding potential, then ya I guess PC is the best choice. BUT... consoles are now breaking through that barrier too, especially PS3. LBP, LBP2 or MNRacers anyone? These are the infants of what will surely be a growing trend in console games.

As for the "lower standard of control etc...". That's arguable too. I mean Assassin's Creed on KB/Mouse is kind of a mind job, but with a controller it's sweet. Ya FPS is better on KB/Mouse blah blah. And RTS is not really great for controllers either. But that's what I am saying.... each platform has its strengths. But I wouldn't take away any "seriousness" from console gaming. Killzone anyone? How about Uncharted 2, Batman, Halo, Gears etc etc...

 

Yeah, the "seriousness" argument is non-existent. It's all about personal preference, budget, and (for me) what more of your friends play. I honestly don't enjoy my video games without playing with my friends.

 

Personally I think for majority of long time PC Gamers, consoles mean little or nothing.

I don't care about consoles.

I've said it before, what I do care about is getting 2nd hand console ports for gaming. Yeah yeah, there are mods, there are indie games. I WANT AAA GAMES MADE FOR PC!!! I want a BC2 that was made specifically straight up for PC. I want Borderlands made for PC with all the things PC Gamers want. I want AAA games that are optimized to play on PC like a champ.
- Metro 2033 is the highlight of a recent game that shows off what DX11 is capable of? Yeah too bad it runs like garbage on even the GTX 480 and you're better off playing on a 360...

 

Hey, Daranik, I found you a pretty decent comparison across all systems.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Graphics Comparison - Features at GameSpot

The PC's GPU is actually on the lower end (5770), and they didn't crank up the resolution. Our interpretation of a drastic graphics difference are likely not anywhere near the same, but you can see that the consoles are blurrier, have lower texture qualities, not as crisp view distances, etc. While the consoles (and definitely the programmers for these games) are doing a VERY good job of squeezing everything they can from these old consoles, they have reached their limit, in my opinion. As more games come out, you will see more and more of a graphics disparity between the consoles and PC. It's started already with Metro, and Crysis 2 will really show the difference, and it will widen from then on out.

Pros of Consoles:

Affordability(HUGE HUGE HUGE)
Huge variety of games
Controllers (if you like them)
Both online setups are good, but Live is better than PS Online, as it should be since it costs money.

Cons of Consoles (teehee, pun)

Hardware is reaching it's saturation point and limiting developers
Controller (also a con for those that do not like them!)
Lack of player content/modification/etc

Pros of PC

MUCH more freedom hardware and software wise
Better graphics and more customization (any 1000 dollar desktop or higher)
Online setups are just as good as Live/PS Online (some better, but basing overall)
KB and Mouse! (if you enjoy them)
Easy to upgrade and maintain

Cons of PC:
Affordability
KB and Mouse (same as controller, some don't like this setup)
Piracy


I'm sure someone else could come up with a more detailed/picky list, but I wanted to keep things unbiased and general. I truly enjoy both platforms, to be honest. I find myself playing my consoles a little more because most of my friends don't have the luxury of owning a higher-end gaming desktop/laptop. However, I am also an avid pc gamer and generally pick up the big titles, especially the non-co-op/multiplayer ones that I can't play with my buddies on Live.

 

I have Xbox360, PS3 and wii, as well as PC, simply because some games are platform exclusive and I want to play them. However, if a game is available on multiple platforms including the PC, I will always play it on the PC, when playing on console, it just simply feels "limited".

 

I hope you don't mind, I used your own words. There's a reason why PC's run emulators for consoles and not the other way around. A console is merely a subset of a PC.

I do not deny their success (though I strongly believe they pose a direct threat to PC gaming); however, the reasons for their success is what disturbs us. Consoles as a platform, exploit the technologically challenged. If they knew better, most console users would realize a PC comes cheaper and better equipped, sans the "sucker" mark-up. Furthermore, exclusive titles only exist because consoles do. Consoles seem to be solely a capitalization and exploitation of ignorance and laziness with none of the focus on driving technology forward as the PC platform does.

 

You seem a bit overly heated over the topic at hand. Your point could be made much better without all of the useless stupidity talk. Instead, you just put a giant derogatory bullseye on yourself.

 

I game on both consoles and PC...

Tonight, I finished Halo Wars on the 360, played competitive Halo 3 with my son on a split 92" screen for 20-30 minutes, and did some co-op on Gears of War 2 with my best friend from high school who lives two time zones away...using the headset (so I can feel like a telemarketer) allowed my friend's 13-year old son to be our living GoW 2 walkthrough...

And then I turned off the console, and played about 30 minutes of Mass Effect on my laptop which I downloaded from Steam this last week for a very good price...and now I'm listening to mp3's as I type this on the laptop...

The world isn't necessarily an either/or proposition...we do have limited time, and some of us have limited resources...

I don't subscribe to the better interface or better graphics arguments for either platform (technical complexity of a graphics engine doesn't drive my game purchases...I played Crysis on the m1710 because I loved Far Cry...my friend showed me Crysis on his desktop...'Wow...god rays...now the experience is truly immersive...'...I actually prefer Far Cry to Crysis still...but I know I'm in the minority there...actually, I still prefer playing Duke Nukem 3D or Ratchet & Clank on the PS2...the shrinking ray/footstomp combo still makes me giggle...I thought Myst had taught all of us the definitive lesson in graphics vs gameplay...we're obviously doomed to repeat history)...and I don't really care if consoles tank PC gaming at this point (and the game selection for PCs has drastically declined since the 90's)...I have plenty of PC games that I'll continue to enjoy until arthritis finally ruins gaming for me...and I'll give the price argument to consoles...all three of the consoles that I currently own and still play (360, PS2 and Gamecube) cost me less combined than the m11x that I'm typing on...however, games, since I rarely buy new releases, are cheaper on the PC...

But, all that said, the BIGGEST advantage to me of PC gaming is mobility...my m1710 and m11x are loaded with games...and all I need to play them is the laptop and the power supply (actually, the m11x will do quite well untethered)...as much as I love my consoles, it's painful to try and make them mobile...

 

It will become painfully obvious that consoles as we know them can't continue to be what they are soon - if the current gen really has another 4-5 years left in it's life cycle, devs will have to make a difficult choice. Either alienate pc gamers everywhere by continuing to develop DX9 games designed around a 7900 gpu, or lose a ton of money by catering towards pc's more and either giving consoles heavily watered down versions (ie, reversing the port order to pc>console) or ceasing console game production altogether.

Another 4 years of DX9 is too long, 4 years is a LONG time for computers. Hell, we'll be well into DX12 by then. You can only do so much in a game to make a good one if you are limited by the platform power, and nobody wants to be playing a game that is graphically 6-10 years out of date when it's new. Especially considering the top console sellers tend to be FPS/racers where graphics and sight distance can actually matter - I mean really, would anyone buy MW2 if it looked like the first SOCOM?

 

Hakira, it will be the hardware companies that get hurt the most. If you think all of these game makers are going to abandon consoles your nuts. There is just too many console gamers out there. The question is, who would buy dx12 when there will probably only be 3 games that utilize it?

 

I will never give up XP (DX9) on my m1710...it will break compatibility with a couple of games that I absolutely love...But I have moved on to W7 (DX10) on the m11x...not exactly why I purchased the little laptop that could, but...

And I'm not really sure platform power is the limiting factor in game development anymore...I think it's creativity...

I still use my PC to play Time Pilot, Mappy, and Black Tiger on mame, and Mike Tyson's Punchout on FCE Ultra...no, the graphics weren't dated when those games were new, but they're heavily dated now...and it doesn't bother me...for whatever reason, I find them fun...

And I didn't buy MW2...I'm not a competitive (multiplayer) gamer...and the single player on CoD4 never really engaged me...some really cool set pieces, but I preferred Half-Life 2...

 

It's entirely possible to develop a game to work on multiple platforms from the ground up, and to offer much better graphics on the PC version of the game. Metro 2033 is a game that I wouldn't really call a port in either direction, for example, and there is a definite difference in the graphics between the two versions.

I can't say to what extent people will do this, but it doesn't take that many games to push the envelope. All it really takes is one developer every few years, for a progression like Crysis->Metro 2033->?


I do agree that creativity is far more important than graphics power, however. These days, decent 3D engines are very much in the mainstream, and so pushing the graphics envelope doesn't really affect gameplay so much anymore. Half-Life 2 came out in 2004, and Valve is still making great use of the Source engine; I'm willing to bet that they're still selling quite a lot of copies of their games, too.

 

Yes, graphics is not everything when it comes to classic games, even playing chrono trigger now, I don't feel the graphics is bad, because when I first played it, it was a time where it's graphics is great, and you kept that memory. However, for new players who already got used to awesome crysis graphics, such 2D sprite is simply unplayable anymore if you did't have any fond memories of it.

 

Chrono Trigger is awesome. Hard to quantify "memories" or "nostalgia" though. Heck, I've played FFVII and Fallout 2 more combined than all other RPGs combined ever.

I suddenly want to play Lunar.

 

I can see MS and Sony's console business going down with all the associated costs of Live upkeep and hardware manufacturing. Sure software sales and royalties keep them afloat, especially as Sony is still trying to recover expenses, but either company could easily have their console gaming divisions go down the pooper. Nintendo has it's own place, but wouldn't be able to compete in the same manner with PC gaming, much like it's a different type of competition Sony and MS have had to adapt against. PCs will always exist as business machines and as long as they do exist, it's possible to make them play games.

 

As with all of these threads, this topic is starting to degrade into insults and petty comments and is now closed.