PDA

View Full Version : Is PC gaming even worth it?



mamamia88
May 31st, 2010, 10:12 PM
Let me start this out by saying that I have both a ps3 and xbox 360. My favorite genres are racing games and sports games with the occasional online fps thrown in. I am more comfortable with a controller and would probably get my *** kicked if I went online on pc with keyboard and mouse. Is it even worth owing a gaming pc or dualbooting for that matter when I can get a computer than runs my favorite os and does everything else I need for way less?

cph05a
May 31st, 2010, 10:14 PM
I think it just depends who you are. I personally don't play any games on the computer.=

sandyd
May 31st, 2010, 10:15 PM
Let me start this out by saying that I have both a ps3 and xbox 360. My favorite genres are racing games and sports games with the occasional online fps thrown in. I am more comfortable with a controller and would probably get my *** kicked if I went online on pc with keyboard and mouse. Is it even worth owing a gaming pc or dualbooting for that matter when I can get a computer than runs my favorite os and does everything else I need for way less?
use the right tool for the job.

In other words, consoles are awesome.
In fact, I actually can't play COD on PC lol.
I tried like yesterday... and major fail...

McRat
May 31st, 2010, 10:16 PM
Let me start this out by saying that I have both a ps3 and xbox 360. My favorite genres are racing games and sports games with the occasional online fps thrown in. I am more comfortable with a controller and would probably get my *** kicked if I went online on pc with keyboard and mouse. Is it even worth owing a gaming pc or dualbooting for that matter when I can get a computer than runs my favorite os and does everything else I need for way less?


IMO, strategy games are always going to be best on a PC. But dynamic games will all move to dedicated hardware.

The real jumps in technology are coming to the consoles, and nothing is planned for the PC's.

Not to mention that a game PC that has the video power of PS3 is about $1500-$2500.

markbahnman
May 31st, 2010, 10:17 PM
I have a gaming compuer and it's awesome for the games that need it. However, I wouldn't recommend it unless you really want to play games that are PC specific (most MMOs), are an HD junkie or love RTSes (Keyboard and Mouse is far better than a controller for an RTS IMO).

JDShu
May 31st, 2010, 10:21 PM
I personally like the mouse and keyboard controls to FPSs. I'm a huge fan of RTS and "sim" games, which can't (yet) be played effectively on consoles. These genres seem to be dying though, so in the future, they might get phased out.

McRat
May 31st, 2010, 10:25 PM
OK School Me:

RTS = ?
MMO = ?
FPS = ?

First Person Shooter (Doom)?

mamamia88
May 31st, 2010, 10:27 PM
RTS= NO
MMO=NO
FPS= I will play a new halo, battlefield, or cod for about 2 months then put it on my shelf until next one comes out.

McRat
May 31st, 2010, 10:30 PM
What kind of bites is there was a huge assortment of military simulation software for PC's 10-20 years ago.

Tons of flight simulators (Apache by Microprose rocked, AUTO-ROTATE or DIE!!!)

Tank Simulation: M1 Tank Platoon.

Naval Strategy: Harpoon (damn that was good)

RADAR evasion: F-119 Stealth Fighter

None of those kinds of games made it to the X360/PS3.

Viva
May 31st, 2010, 10:30 PM
RTS - Real-time Strategy e.g., Age of empires, Glest(Free)
MMO(RPG) - Massively Multiplayer Online(Role-playing Game) e.g., World of Warcraft
FPS - First Person Shooter e.g., Doom

McRat
May 31st, 2010, 10:30 PM
RTS= NO
MMO=NO
FPS= I will play a new halo, battlefield, or cod for about 2 months then put it on my shelf until next one comes out.

No, I don't understand the acronyms. MMO = Monkeys Molesting Oranges?

mamamia88
May 31st, 2010, 10:34 PM
no as in i don't play those types of games. i used to be big into first person shooters but rarerly play them anymore.

Random_Dude
May 31st, 2010, 10:42 PM
I used to play a lot of PC games, but then I've lost the time for them and the patience for updating my PC hardware so I could play the games that came out that year.

Video games are getting more and more focussed on getting more pixels per mm^2 than actually having any original story or gameplay IMHO. :(

Cheers :cool:

Shazzam6999
May 31st, 2010, 10:43 PM
I love my PC and if there is an option between a PC version of a game and a console version I will always choose the PC version. The only reason I really own a PS3 was ironically enough for FF13 which I played like 3 hours of before getting annoyed; but as someone above me said, I can only play COD on a console for some reason.

Generally I just feel the PC is more immersive, 28" screen right in my face, I like the mouse/keyboard setup more, games always look better, mods in some cases (can't even imagine Oblivion or Fallout 3 on a console), I can pause and alt-tab if I'm frustrated or annoyed, the sound system I have connected to my PC blows my poor TV away. There's games I've hated on consoles and then loved on PCs: I hated Mass Effect on the Xbox but I love the series on the PC.

Truthfully it's all personal preference... but given the choice between a Console and a PC I would take the PC every time.



The real jumps in technology are coming to the consoles, and nothing is planned for the PC's.

Not to mention that a game PC that has the video power of PS3 is about $1500-$2500.
Uh, DX11? 4-6 core processors becoming affordable? USB 3.0? I see new technology coming out for computers fairly frequently (even if I hate most of it), I haven't seen a new idea for consoles since all the new motion sensor junk... project natal? Not to mention the fact that consoles are basically PCs; the reason you hear that PCs have better graphics than consoles is because most modern PCs are running way better hardware than consoles (although the cell is pretty beastly), I read somewhere the PS3 is basically running an x1900 with 256mb of dedicated and then 256mb of system memory. Finally, the last comment is just silly. You can easily build a computer that will run every game for around 600$, likely less; and don't forget that it's also a computer, which does far more than run games.

McRat
May 31st, 2010, 10:46 PM
Trivia -

Before computer games, there were serious board games. No, not Monopoly, these were used by hobbyists and military organizations. Think about it. All games are war games.

Blitzkrieg (an entry level game) and other military board games were very sophisticated even by computer game standards. Some would have a hundred pages of rules and procedures, and be more authentic than any of the computer games ever released.

Like chess on steroids to the 3rd power.

McRat
May 31st, 2010, 10:51 PM
I love my PC and if there is an option between a PC version of a game and a console version I will always choose the PC version. The only reason I really own a PS3 was ironically enough for FF13 which I played like 3 hours of before getting annoyed; but as someone above me said, I can only play COD on a console for some reason.

Generally I just feel the PC is more immersive, 28" screen right in my face, I like the mouse/keyboard setup more, games always look better, mods in some cases (can't even imagine Oblivion or Fallout 3 on a console), I can pause and alt-tab if I'm frustrated or annoyed, the sound system I have connected to my PC blows my poor TV away. There's games I've hated on consoles and then loved on PCs: I hated Mass Effect on the Xbox but I love the series on the PC.

Truthfully it's all personal preference... but given the choice between a Console and a PC I would take the PC every time.


Uh, DX11? 4-6 core processors becoming affordable? USB 3.0? I see new technology coming out for computers fairly frequently (even if I hate most of it), I haven't seen a new idea for consoles since all the new motion sensor junk... project natal? Not to mention the fact that consoles are basically PCs; the reason you hear that PCs have better graphics than consoles is because most modern PCs are running way better hardware than consoles (although the cell is pretty beastly), I read somewhere the PS3 is basically running an x1900 with 256mb of dedicated and then 256mb of system memory. Finally, the last comment is just silly. You can easily build a computer that will run every game for around 600$, likely less; and don't forget that it's also a computer, which does far more than run games.

I started to plan out a system last night.

$120 for 4gb RAM
$200 for a AMD hotrod chip.
$180 for a USB3+SATA6 M/B.
$120 for a 650w PS and Case.

That's six bills without a keyboard, monitor, video card, mouse, and joystick.

Most "game" systems advertised are over $2000. You can build something similar for $1500.

BTW, I'm finding that many of the great games from a decade ago run excellent under Linux and WINE, but make a Win98 bottle, not an XP bottle. It is easier to run a 2000 game under Ubuntu than Win Vista or Win7. And it's more stable.

mamamia88
May 31st, 2010, 10:55 PM
yes but my xbox 360 cost me $400 when i first got it. my ps3 also cost $400 when I got it. and i won't need to spend any more money on hardware at least for a few years now and games are ready to play as soon as you get home from the store.

haggus71
May 31st, 2010, 10:59 PM
Uh, DX11? 4-6 core processors becoming affordable? USB 3.0? I see new technology coming out for computers fairly frequently (even if I hate most of it), I haven't seen a new idea for consoles since all the new motion sensor junk... project natal? Not to mention the fact that consoles are basically PCs; the reason you hear that PCs have better graphics than consoles is because most modern PCs are running way better hardware than consoles (although the cell is pretty beastly), I read somewhere the PS3 is basically running an x1900 with 256mb of dedicated and then 256mb of system memory. Finally, the last comment is just silly. You can easily build a computer that will run every game for around 600$, likely less; and don't forget that it's also a computer, which does far more than run games.

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

Universities are making supercomputers out of them. The Cell processor is the greatest processor to come out in the past ten years, compared to anything on the desktop. You don't need a graphics card or much dedicated RAM when you have a super-chip with 8 cores. Besides, I can get a laptop that can play any RTS/MMO on the market, plus get a PS3, for half the price of a gaming computer that can beat the shear core performance of the PS3. AND neither use M$ for an operating system.

That is, until they get Onlive perfected. Then, all that will matter is how close to the server you are! Crysis on the Eee PC for all!

kaldor
May 31st, 2010, 11:07 PM
Computer games are usually aimed towards the hardcore market. FPS games are better using keyboard+mouse instead of thumbs.

Shazzam6999
May 31st, 2010, 11:09 PM
http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

Universities are making supercomputers out of them. The Cell processor is the greatest processor to come out in the past ten years, compared to anything on the desktop. You don't need a graphics card or much dedicated RAM when you have a super-chip with 8 cores. Besides, I can get a laptop that can play any RTS/MMO on the market, plus get a PS3, for half the price of a gaming computer that can beat the shear core performance of the PS3. AND neither use M$ for an operating system.
The military actually uses PS3s for the cell as well, which is why I exempted the cell.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/build_a_500_pc_play_crysis_40fps 500$ gaming PC that will play everything... and it's outdated, so for entertainment let me figure out what it costs now. Hey, look at that it's actually faster and cheaper... 450$ computer, that's better and that should easily play everything at medium-high settings which is better than consoles in my experience. http://secure.newegg.com/Shopping/ShoppingCart.aspx?.

Btw, saying that doesn't include the monitor is like saying that the price of a PS3 doesn't include the price of a T.V., realistically you can probably find a free keyboard,mouse, and monitor on craiglist, or you can simply use your old ones, or you can plug your computer into the T.V..

mosshorn
May 31st, 2010, 11:38 PM
I'm building a gaming rig right now for ~$1200, and plan on it lasting me a while. But with $675 to go, sometimes my eyes look upon the ps3 and think "why did I go PC?" I think after this rig I'm going to build a Media Center, then whenever my computer is outdated just do consoles. Until game developers catch up with how PC hardware is growing, it just isn't worth it.

Firestem4
June 1st, 2010, 12:42 AM
The real jumps in technology are coming to the consoles, and nothing is planned for the PC's.


This isn't true. Consoles are static devices by nature and thus are only innovative during each succession of the console. The new PS3 that was just released is no different than the original generation of PS3's except the shrunken form factor and badly designed case.

PC technology are rapidly changing due to Moore's law which although many critics claim isn't possible at this point, still holds true. Just look at some of the most recently released/highly anticipated products and features coming to the computer market: the Intel Core i7 proccessor line, AMD-ATI Radeon 5700/5800, nVidia CUDA and ATI Fusion.

The Xbox360 and PS3 do what they do very well because it is what they were specifically engineered to do. Computers do a lot more and thus the hardware has been developed to accommodate that. But, for me it doesn't mean that its in any way superior than a PC. (And I'm a die-hard PC fanatic, but I also love my PS3 and Xbox...even though 4 xbox's have broken on my. ARG!)



Not to mention that a game PC that has the video power of PS3 is about $1500-$2500.

the PS3 is a very advanced piece of hardware but its only good at what it does because it was specifically developed to perform graphics and gaming. Computer hardware is more adapt overall because its designed to accommodate so many different uses. Also I highly disagree with the fact that you need an expensive computer to run games well.

My computer specs are listed in my signature. I've got a 3 year old graphics card, a budget (read: $60) CPU, a 4 year old Sound Card, and a pair of not so very fast HDD's. The only thing I can't do on modern games is Max graphics With Anti-Aliasing.

aklo
June 1st, 2010, 01:02 AM
Starcraft 2 is only for PC keyboard + mouse only and fast hands :guitar:

McRat
June 1st, 2010, 01:03 AM
Always buy the MS Extended Warranty. We have burned up three X360's too.

I used to love playing games on PC's and I still try to find time. But my kids, who are gaming age now, seldom pick the PC over the PS3 or X360.

Recently I got them hooked on Starcraft, and we play on our LAN. Ubuntu/WINE works better than any of the Windows platforms. For real.

But every 5-10 minutes, it pauses for 5 seconds in network play. Doesn't harm anything, but it's the Linux box doing it.

I really wish the PC was still the King of the computer game. But you can tell by the sales and selection of games, that it's time is passing.

The Wii system, the new PS3 xxxx and the X360 xxxx motion controlled systems are going to be the final straw. New games will want a 40" or larger screen, and special motion sensing peripherials.

There was a time that when you wanted SERIOUS gaming power, a PC was the only option. That day is gone. Put Stormavik (flight simulator) on a PS3 and do a high res barrel-roll with enemy aircraft filing the skies. It has enough resolution, speed, and realism to give you vertigo on a large HD display.

themarker0
June 1st, 2010, 01:08 AM
I have a Cod 6 cd here... Just waiting for me to install windows..

McRat
June 1st, 2010, 01:13 AM
Starcraft 2 is only for PC keyboard + mouse only and fast hands :guitar:


How is it? Is it still mostly a strategy game?

The original Warcraft/Starcraft is still a great multiplayer strategy game.

toupeiro
June 1st, 2010, 01:21 AM
The benefit of console gaming is optimization, optimization, optimization..

Consoles have a proprietary hardware base for a set lifetime, while PC's will completely vary from system to system on virtually every single component, both in software and in hardware. This makes it very hard to deliver a baseline on PC's when it comes to gaming, whereas on consoles, they absolutely know what their platform is going to be for 100% of those console owners.

That being said, console gaming, specifically X-box supported titles, has been said to be holding back on PC gaming innovation by 3rd party gaming developers desiring cross-platform functionality with PC's and consoles, primarily due to where Direct-X is on the PC versus the console. Games are several versions behind with regard to leveraging modern direct-X functionality if they are cross-platform games. PC gaming, in other words, could be much better, but with windows, if you're not leveraging directX, you can't leverage the full potential of your video hardware. It's ridiculous, but it's true. Microsoft has put a lap-band around your video hardware, and it's called Direct-X. Technologies like Cuda would potentially be the answer to this problem, but you don't see it used much in the gaming industry, and the GPU standard codebase that would work across ATi and NVidia is not ready for primetime. Right now, PC gaming as a viable market is nothing like it used to be, for better or worse. The X-box has put a glass ceiling on the development potential of PC games.

You still have your major staples, like World of Warcraft, but the time when the array all the best RTS, FPS, and other genre's were all on PC are no more. Until game developers start coding their games to have "direct access" to this hardware and not depend so much on Direct-X to work, I don't see this changing, but when the real potential in modern GPU's can be used for gaming with the vendors codebase, I think PC's will once again offer something console game systems won't be able to. Consequently, developing for a unified GPU codebase would make gaming cross-PC platform, and open the floodgates to linux gaming.

Dharmachakra
June 1st, 2010, 01:27 AM
I will play almost any game on a PC simply to avoid the idiots that play on consoles.

toupeiro
June 1st, 2010, 01:32 AM
I will play almost any game on a PC simply to avoid the idiots that play on consoles.

haha yes, there's ALWAYS been that contrast in demographic, but as PC's are as about as commodity as blenders in most homes, this applies less and less.

It's like shopping at wal-mart versus shopping at target. :P Wal-mart may be cheaper, but damn, is it really worth it?

... that last comparison was a joke, of course. :P

jwbrase
June 1st, 2010, 01:35 AM
I personally don't have the fine hand control necessary for console gaming. I can do FPS's on a computer, but I absolutely get slaughtered on a console. (With the exception of Metroid Prime on my brother's game cube. That had a control system I could actually use). Also, my gaming interests tend to be rather off-mainstream, and console environments tend to be friendlier to more mainstream game types.

toupeiro
June 1st, 2010, 01:38 AM
I personally don't have the fine hand control necessary for console gaming. I can do FPS's on a computer, but I absolutely get slaughtered on a console. (With the exception of Metroid Prime on my brother's game cube. That had a control system I could actually use). Also, my gaming interests tend to be rather off-mainstream, and console environments tend to be friendlier to more mainstream game types.

I actually find that that console FPS'ing completely lacks the sensitivity and accuracy of PC gaming. I'd go as far to say it takes better hand control to aim with a mouse X,Y,Z (wheel) axis than it does with the typical console controller.

McRat
June 1st, 2010, 01:38 AM
It certainly could have been either a deliberate or unintentional move by MS that has allowed PC's to wallow in the gaming world.

MS makes a lot more money selling X360 technology than PC gaming tech. Have you seen a Win7 Game OS yet? Rigghht. There are 6-7 versions of Win7 but none are targeted at gaming. Heck, even Halo For Windows won't run on Win7, IIRC.

Zerocool Djx
June 1st, 2010, 01:40 AM
Well,.. I got PS1, PS2, PS3, SNES, XBOX, XBOX360 on my PC and they all play fine...

chiliman
June 1st, 2010, 02:06 AM
i would say it depends on the type of games you like to play. i really enjoy first person shooters. Having a mouse really makes a FPS more fun. I mainly play Call of Duty 4 modern warfare and i am ALL about the mods and custom maps for that game and you don't get that stuff on the consoles.

then there are situations in a massively multiplayer online game like Final Fantasy 11 where the game itself is being held back by the consoles. they could have done alot more for the game if it was developed around the PC. i used a plugin that was available for the PC called windower. when you would play final fantasy 11 with out windower its all you could use your PC for. ifyou minimized the game you would get disconnected from the server. windower made it so you could minimize the game and use you computer while playing the game. and also added in some much needed plugins for the game that the consoles lacked and needed desperately.

but i would say the sports games are best on consoles.

pwnst*r
June 1st, 2010, 02:10 AM
Let me start this out by saying that I have both a ps3 and xbox 360. My favorite genres are racing games and sports games with the occasional online fps thrown in. I am more comfortable with a controller and would probably get my *** kicked if I went online on pc with keyboard and mouse. Is it even worth owing a gaming pc or dualbooting for that matter when I can get a computer than runs my favorite os and does everything else I need for way less?

Absolutely worth it. I also have a ps3 and 360, but k/b and mouse rules all. The only reason I play MW2 on the 360 is because of the lack of dedicated servers on the PC version (let's not even talk about that).

larsenguitars
September 10th, 2010, 05:54 PM
Wii controls rule for FPS.
I just bought Metroid Prime Trilogy.
I already owned all 3 games but I bought this release just to replay Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (originally on Gamecube) with Wii controls. I generally suck at shooting games. But put a Wii remote (or gun) in my hand & I turn into a Nintendo monster.
:lol::evil::lol:

Naiki Muliaina
September 10th, 2010, 08:39 PM
Only reason I use a PC for gaming is MMOs and online games nowdays. I have a few single player games but my DSi is my main gaming thing for offline games.

Legendary_Bibo
September 11th, 2010, 12:29 AM
If they release KB/M support for RTS or FPS games on the consoles with a changed out HUD then I don't see any point in a gaming PC. Just with that support alone, the consoles could destroy the PC gaming industry with only the maxing out junkies being the only ones left. I doubt the 360 would do that because then that would pull people away from wanting to buy the newest version of Windows.

jadedcritic
September 11th, 2010, 12:42 AM
I for one, would argue that it's not worth it, but I've never been a big fan of the people who cry about it how it's dying or how console gaming's killing it.

Straight up - from a pure economics point of view, as I see it the problem with PC gaming is STRICTLY a supply side problem. Demand's not going anywhere. Hasn't for many-many moons, but you can attribute the shift in supplier attitude to any number of things if you're so inclined. The rise in consoles, the rise in MMO, the rise in piracy. Heck, you can even write it off to the advances in technology or the global financial crisis if you want. The financial model for PC games revenue has always been rather henky. Back in the day, if I remember correctly, the average development cycle was 9 months. So from a costs point of view, you can expect to bleed money for 9 months, MINIMUM, in return for maybe six months of revenue once it hits stores. TOPS. Unless, of course, you're a freak like Blizzard and you can count on the Koreans to keep buying copies of Starcraft for 20 years. ;)

So these companies look at their development costs, then they look at the potential revenues. NOT TO MENTION the appeal of things like selling DLC on the console networks. Some of these games are making damn near as much in DLC profit as they are in the game itself. This is NOT to say that they can't make a profit releasing a game that isn't an MMO for the PC, but it's much harder, and far higher risk.

Honestly, I don't have a good solution, but I'm kinda uber-capitalist, I have a tendency to believe that most companies would sell their own grandmothers if they thought they could make a profit doing it. So in order for companies to come back to the PC market, something has to change to make it less costly/more profitable for them. Honestly, I don't know what that could be, but to reiterate, of course demand is still here. Always been. Just don't have people willing to supply that demand. Unless of course, you're talking about MMO's. I wish it could be different. I miss games, but I honestly don't see any of this changing anytime soon.

Kdar
September 11th, 2010, 01:01 AM
lol.. I was always asking myself "Is console gaming even worth it?" What an irony :)

formaldehyde_spoon
September 11th, 2010, 02:43 AM
UTotally worth it. No console can match a PCs resolution, let alone the rest of it graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

Controllers are no match for keyboard&mouse: http://www.rahulsood.com/2010/07/console-gamers-get-killed-against-pc.html

Khakilang
September 11th, 2010, 08:41 AM
I use to like Warcraft Reign of Choas and Frozen throne but I left it behind for Linux. Is there a similar game in Linux?

alexan
September 11th, 2010, 02:01 PM
Consoles are product made by "agreement" between various companies: usually the "master" (actually: Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo), the main partner (Intel/ATI/AMD/Nvidia) and all the rest (soundfeatures, motherboard and stuff like that).


A "good" agreement between these companies don't necessary mean to bring a "higher quality" product: it has just to look better and come with cheap price.


PC nature is to build by your own: if you want better graphic, bring the rig in the store and make the update with the videocard.
ATI/Nvidia or whatever.

Naiki Muliaina
September 11th, 2010, 03:35 PM
I use to like Warcraft Reign of Choas and Frozen throne but I left it behind for Linux. Is there a similar game in Linux?

Not as heavily populated no. My sig has some MMO's for Linux, as well as Ubuntu Gamers Areana and Gaming On Linux, links below.

http://www.lostroad.tk/ - MMOs and online gaming on Linux

http://ubuntugamelist.org/ - Biggest good list of Linux games on the web

http://www.gamingonlinux.info/ - New site, semi active forum, runs competitions to win games each week or something I think.

Kdar
September 11th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Consoles are similar to Windows in some ways.. Like you need to wait 5 years to get an upgrade :)

V for Vincent
September 11th, 2010, 04:25 PM
They're just suited to different styles of games. Platformers and sports games, for instance, tend to work better on consoles. FPS and strategy are real PC genres.

If you're happy with the consoles you've got, investing in a monster PC would obviously be a waste of money.