"Morgan" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news
oI3n.17252$I67.16040@newsfe16.ams2...
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both
>>>>> as
>>>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
>>>> LOL
>>>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
>>>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
>>>> last.
>>> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
>>> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>>
>> People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
>> years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
>> things *weren't* on the way out.
>
> This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio tape
> incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC requires a
> lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and will require
> substantial investment.
>
>>>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
>>>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
>>>> consumer.
>>> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>>
>> Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
>> noticeable change.
>
> Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
> that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
> Blu-Ray.
>
>>If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
>> include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
>> the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
>> improvement.
>
> Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a new
> PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.
>
> >You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
>> resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
>> mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
>> rig.
>
> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a mid
> range PC of the day.
>
I have to mostly agree with Almighty on his comments really. I mean, I am an
avid PC gamer but only for a niche set of games, and I just built a really
expensive rig ($4K) and most people are not going to go that route because
most (typical) gamers feel just fine with the console games, they are happy
with what they offer (look at Wii sales!!). I am, for the most part, one of
them, except I am an RPG freak, they are better on PC, but I somehow think
that won't last much longer going into the next gen. The PC market is
certainly not dead, but it is a nearly complete shell of its former self and
game sales and especially hardware sales even reflect that.
Hell, even over the past year or so, the console gaming industry has
suffered a bit from sales, so I don't think that PC sales for gamers are
going to somehow leap consoles, and I think consoles are the future. They
are definitely getting better and better with quality graphics, controls and
performance. I am a niche person to be honest. I do agree with you that one
doesn't need a rig like I have to enjoy good game on a PC, if you do the
right math, you actually can save money on PC gaming. I remember reading an
article not long ago where a gaming site ran down the cost effectiveness and
then value.
- You can buy a decent rig these days with a decent monitor for about $800
and it would be good enough for 3-4 years and it would be more powerful.
Add these in:
-You can customize most games on PC and PC games usually cost $10 less,
sometimes even less than that, than console games. Add this up for some who
buy 15-20 game a year, that money adds up over a few years.
- Mouse and keyboards usually last longer than controllers (I've gone though
4 controllers on my 360 to date, that's $200 right there) My previous gaming
rig lasted nearly 6 years with the same mouse and keyboard.
-You can mod and always have far superior controls schemes
- Nearly better graphics all of the time and better performance.
- Much more more storage space for saves and content as most PCs today, even
for my example cost will have two HDDs. You only have one for the 360 (or
PS3) and the 360 rapes consumers by forcing them to use MS approved and made
hardware add-ons.
- You are not forced to except updates that can (though rarely) have an
adverse effect on your console or for the games. Don't except an update on
the 360, you can't play online.
- Being able to multitask while gaming, if needed.
Having listed these, it is a fact that most will still see consoles as "good
enough" and not fret over aspects of what I want/prefer, or what you
want/prefer. PC gaming certainly isn't dead, and it will be around for years
to come, but it is dwindling and the numbers reflect that..
