On Jan 14, 6:15 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "Morgan" <nos...@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.
I agree except that, as I've emphasized quite emphatically every time
I brought the subject up in this newsgroup, it's only true when you
look at just what most of us "hardcore" gamers knew as the gaming
industry back in the day. Casual games and subscription-based MMOs, as
well as Flash games and Facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars,
are thriving and revenue from those surpass what you see on the
consoles.
> 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.
PC sales for games certainly won't come back swinging. Consider that
the majority of console gamers are not the hardcore used-to-be-PC-
gamer types like most of us here. Most of the people playing these
days have no clue about the rich history of the PC gaming industry -
never heard of games like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate,
Planescape, the D&D gold box games, Quake, the original Unreal games,
Hexen, Duke Nukem, etc. Most of these people aren't gaming geeks like
the lot of us.
They're not going to know that you can run these high-powered games on
PCs that don't cost you thousands of dollars... they're going to go to
Dell and see "Gaming PCs" and assume that's what you have to have to
play the good games.
Custom-building a PC? Ha!
I'd have to say that honestly even if price weren't an issue I *still*
wouldn't go back to PC gaming for the following reasons:
a) The social aspect. If you're the typical console gamer, chances are
you don't know anybody who plays COD, L4D, etc. on the PC. All your
friends are either busy *still* playing Halo 3 or duking it out in
Gears, COD or L4D on *Xbox Live.* Sure, you could play with strangers
but playing with people you've already established some sort of
relationship with is a compelling feature for most people (also one of
the reasons why it'll be a while before PSN gets as popular as Live).
b) The overall experience. If you're the typical desktop PC owner,
your PC is, well, on a desktop somewhere in your home. Your PC is not
likely going to be sitting in the living room, family room or den next
to your nice, big HDTV. Most people would prefer to be sitting on
their nice, comfortable couch in front of their big screen HDTV rather
than in an office chair at a desk in some small office or library with
their face 2' away from a 20" computer monitor. Keyboard/mouse kills
controllers but the environment in which they're typically used don't.
> 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.
I don't know about that. Any Dell in that price range is going to have
integrated graphics (and not a very good chipset).
Here's one for $900 - no monitor and a graphics card that AnandTech
says is good for Blu-ray and boosting an integrated chip (which this
model doesn't include) but isn't good for running performance games.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...-9000_anav_1~~
I suppose if you're custom building it yourself you could get in
around $800 in parts... but you know that most people wouldn't give
that route a second thought.
> 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.
That's an interesting point. On the flipside, the prices of console
games tend to drop faster. On the other hand, a lot of publishers tend
to give a sizeable discount to games on Steam and other digital
distribution services for the first week or so (which is actually
*bad* for the industry since the most sales will come during a time
when they're making the least profit).
> - 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.
What the hell are you doing to your controllers? LOL
The only time I've purchased more than the "standard max" number of
controllers for a console was when those controllers were specialized.
And until a few years ago, I was the type of gamer who hurled his
controllers into the wall and slammed them into the floor when a game
"cheated." ;-)
> -You can mod and always have far superior controls schemes
Definitely a plus for PC gaming...
> - Nearly better graphics all of the time and better performance.
*IF* you're going with a machine that costs far more than a console.
> - 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.
Well, I don't think saves are an issue one way or another, but I
obviously see your point.
> - 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.
That's both good and bad. One good thing about this is that if the
update involves fixing exploits and openings for cheating, hacking,
etc. in multiplayer you have to go through with it, anyway.
The bad thing, of course, is that rarely the updates can really mess
with the game or system. That's pretty uncommon, though.
> - Being able to multitask while gaming, if needed.
How many people, really, are going to be gaming while working,
browsing, watching a video, etc.? That's a pretty small demographic
that would need the ability to multitask. At best, you've got people
who want to look up a cheat or hint on GameFAQs (which Blig and his
fellows will say is such a huge advantage of the PS3's web browser).
> 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..
Bingo.
