UT3 PC Sells 33,995, Crysis Sells 86,633 in US in November

super_furry

For me it's just the hassle of PC gaming that puts me off. I play World of Warcraft a fair bit on my laptop, but that's pretty much it. If a multi-format game is released and I want it, I'll always get it on the console because I know I can get it up and working instantly without any hassle. I don't have to worry how it will look, what framerate it will run at or if there's problems getting online.

To my mind consoles, particularly the Xbox 360, have taken the best aspect of PC gaming - intergrated online gaming - and simplified it so it's available to everyone. Aside from the uber-graphics you'll get from a massively expensive system that CAN run the likes of Crysis, I just don't see any benefit in PC gaming, aside from MMORPGs.

papu

PC > CONSOEL

for everything except FiFa'00
great game...

no seriously , consolers may have some skill , but its confined within the ranks of their own relm , joypad is great and all , but mouse and keyboard is better.

there has not yet been a game to fully allow joypad vs mouse , the closest you could get to it would be to play cod4 on pc and have someone use a wireless 360 controller.

i shall test this sometime ..
anyways , sales dont mean one thing is better than the other.they sell more bicycles than cars doesnt mean that bicycles go faster.

pc's re more hassle (and thats more hassle to build your own superrig , but if your insanely rich buy a high end Xps from dell , stick in a game dvd let it install and away you go!)
, more adaptive , more upgradeable , and more range of games.
ty and goodnight

0ubliette

conzymaher wrote: »

#1 I said competitive not "Pr0" and when did I limit it to Ireland?

#2 You suck and you wont ever understand

Wow, i cen tell from your completely well thought out and professionally argued points there that you're in no way shape or form completely biased towards the PC, and as such, every point you've made thus far are all 100% valid, comepletely true statements.
Suffice to say that when i return home from work tonight i shall instantly take a sledgehammer to my xbox360, ps3 and all my retro consoles, all games including and not limited to crackdown, the darkness, DiRT, Gears of war (thats right, consoles had it a year before PC), Halo 3, Assassins Creed, Bioshock, Ace combat 6 etc etc and burn them. I shall Burn the hell out of them for not being a copy of unreal tournament on the PC. All hail mighty unreal tournament and its vastly superior keyboard and mouse configuration!! Even tho its like 8 years old and the last good UT was 2004 and thats 3 years old at this stage, looks like arse, and plays like any other run n gun deathmatch shooter.

....................................,.-‘”...................` `~.,..............
.............................,.-”............................ .......“-.,.........
.........................,/.................................. .............”:,....
.....................,?...................................... ................\,..
.................../......................................... ..................,}
................./........................................... ...........,:`^`..}.
.............../............................................. ......,:”........./.
..............?.....__....................................... ..:`.........../....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:` ........../.......
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`.... ...._/..........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/... .}..........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”......... ...../..........
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}.......... ..../............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(...... ;_,,-”..............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\.... ../\................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./ .....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|.. ............`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\..... ...................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\. ....................
................................`:,,......................... ..`\..............__
.....................................`=-,..................., %`>--==``......
........................................_\..........._,-%.... ...`\...............

FFS...****ing fanboys.

EDIT
also the fact that you spelt 'Pr0' with a zero instead of an O completely negates anything you have to say on this matter, ever.

L31mr0d

0ubliette wrote: »

ranty mcrant rant

still doesn't change the fact that

PC > Console... with a cherry on top *booyah*

sprinkles

papu wrote: »

PC > CONSOEL

no seriously , consolers may have some skill , but its confined within the ranks of their own relm , joypad is great and all , but mouse and keyboard is better.

anyways , sales dont mean one thing is better than the other.they sell more bicycles than cars doesnt mean that bicycles go faster.

That's a retarded statement. Faster doesn't mean better so the metaphor isn't even right.

Anyway my 2 cents;

Consoles produce more accessable games designed for a range of gamers - casual to hardcore. There is a vast amount of classic games that are only available on consoles - Zelda/mario etc and for this reason alone I think it's pepsterous to say that PC>Consoles.

The only point that I keep hearing is that the keyboard & Mouse is better than the joypad. For certain games that's correct but that doesn't make tha game a bad one - and it certainly doesn't mean the console is worse than the pc - there's plenty of games that work perfectly on consoles without the need for a keyboard/mouse.

Right - FLAME ON people

papu

L31mr0d wrote: »

still doesn't change the fact that

PC > Console... with a cherry on top *booyah*

qft , also

That's a retarded statement.

no you!

Faster doesn't mean better so the metaphor isn't even right.

yes i this context it does.

Consoles produce more accessable games designed for a range of gamers - casual to hardcore. There is a vast amount of classic games that are only available on consoles - Zelda/mario etc and for this reason alone I think it's pepsterous to say that PC>Consoles.

:eek:

That's a retarded statement.

with the all mighty inturnetz u can download this thing called an emulator? which means you can play anygame ever made ( within reason) on one machine , the pc....

The only point that I keep hearing is that the keyboard & Mouse is better than the joypad. For certain games that's correct but that doesn't make tha game a bad one - and it certainly doesn't mean the console is worse than the pc - there's plenty of games that work perfectly on consoles without the need for a keyboard/mouse.

no joypads are great , if you wanna play fighting/sports games, or midlessly mash buttons , another great console invention mashing!

mouse's can change sensitivity in game have as many buttons as you 360 controller and doesnt give you a numb hand.

Gears of war (thats right, consoles had it a year before PC

yeah cause that games great , duck and cover , shoot , duck shoot , cover some more , run and shoot , duck behind some cover , shoot some ducks behind a cover .

seriously ive played it , it doesn't hold a wet rag to crysis ...oh thats right ...Crysis...
the best looking game of all time...pc exclusive....yeah....

Azza

Keyboard and mouse is going be a personal preference. But say if 1 person puts in the same effort into mastering a game on a joypad and another puts the same effort into the keyboard and mouse its almost a certainty the player using the keryboard and mouse would comfortable beat him in a 2 player deathmatch game. not about skill its just the keyboard and mouse is much more responsive giving player 2 in this case a massive advantage.

I have no evidence to back this up but going on a hunch that someone using a PC would also invest in a joypad for say a sports game (PES/FIFA)or a joystick for a flight sim while a console player if he had the option of using a keyboard and mouse/joystick would stick with the joypad for every type of game be it sports, fps rts etc. Not always but probably in the majority of cases I would say the previous statement to be true.

Still think over the years the PC edges out any 1 console in terms of A list games. I'd put this down primarily to its dominance of the online market.
Not saying consoles don't have some stellar games though
.
Also as mentioned before in this thread emulation allows the playing of lots of console games right up to the Playstation and Dreamcast era and even some PS2 games. Also you can emulate arcade games on a PC.
You can also do this with the PSP's as well now but I'd guess people doing it have a background in PC's.

In response to 0ubliette. You can get many of those great games you have on PC, such as Dirt, Bioshock and Gears of War on PC. I'm not a big fan of Halo series having played Halo 1 on the PC (its does not have co-op on pc) the single player I found very average. I also have Halo 2 on PC but not played it yet as its a Vista exclusive. From what I have played I personal can't see where the hype comes from as its mutiplayer seems tame compared to alot of PC online games. Though I will admit I would like to play Mass Affect and Ace Combat 6 though. Assassins Creed will be out in a month or so on PC so will pick it up then. Personal the Xbox 360 is the least of the 3 consoles to inspire (odd considering most people reckon it has the best line up of games)

As for UT3 it was released in a unfinished state. The gameplay is still good but it suffers from 4 major problems. The late release of Linux servers have kept server numbers down. The UI is pretty poor as are the current crop of maps. Advertisement for the game was almost non existent. They might be reserving there efforts for the console release but I can't see console players have a interest in such a deathmatch type game. Games like UT are no longer the norm as most online shooters have switched to more realistic type play like COD, DOD:S, CS:S or Battlefield. Even Quake Wars does not have the exaggerated movement and is focused on team play. I'd take issue with your statement its "another run and gun shooter". The last game released like it on PC was Quake 4 thats like 2 years ago.

Papu what you got against Gears of War. I found it to be a brilliant game played through it on co-op on the PC, found it great fun just as I did when I tried on the Xbox 360 before. Decent graphics and sound. Great atmosphere and great gameplay but was a little thin on the story side.

Crysis on the other hand was a disappointment wasn't terrible but was merely an average game coupled with great graphics. Also its expected that a slightly watered down graphically version will make an appearance on consoles some time.

conzy

0ubliette wrote: »

also the fact that you spelt 'Pr0' with a zero instead of an O completely negates anything you have to say on this matter, ever.

lol? sarcasm is great....

Anyway, nobody has countered any of my points yet. just kept saying how great Halo3 is? Hmmmmm

So the greater control and visual quality of PC games isnt worth writing home about?

Also, BioShock, Dirt, Assasins Creed, bla bla bla are all on PC....

FPS on a pc > console...

Maybe if you want to collect stars with a plumber a console is better......

papu

Azza wrote: »

Papu what you got against Gears of War. I found it to be a brilliant game played through it on co-op on the PC, found it great fun just as I did when I tried on the Xbox 360 before. Decent graphics and sound. Great atmosphere and great gameplay but was a little thin on the story side.

Crysis on the other hand was a disappointment wasn't terrible but was merely an average game coupled with great graphics. Also its expected that a slightly watered down graphically version will make an appearance on consoles some time.

i guess we have different preferences , i found what i played of gow repetitive and consoley , i found it quite a bad port ;/

i found crysis superb , fantastic graphics it really took off at the second half , really immersing gameplay

Azza

Gears of War from a graphical point of view on the PC is better than the console equivelent and adds in some minor additional content. I will admit it was extremely buggy though. If it gets some patches to resolve its issues it will be marginally superior to the console version. Thought the gameplay was very satisfying and thats why it got away without showing a lot of verity.

Crysis I found had a poor second half after a decent if unspectacular first half.
I found the ropey AI kept breaking the immersion factor for me. Its story was also solid but unspectacular. The destructible environments did not really add a lot to the gameplay in my opinion. Forget they where their after a while.

papu

Azza wrote: »

Gears of War from a graphical point of view on the PC is better than the console equivelent and adds in some minor additional content. I will admit it was extremely buggy though. If it gets some patches to resolve its issues it will be marginally superior to the console version. Thought the gameplay was very satisfying and thats why it got away without showing a lot of verity.

Crysis I found had a poor second half after a decent if unspectacular first half.
I found the ropey AI kept breaking the immersion factor for me. Its story was also solid but unspectacular. The destructible environments did not really add a lot to the gameplay in my opinion. Forget they where their after a while.

found the ai to be quirky but enjoyed the various ways of killing them , as the destructible environments i loved driving jeeps into huts and blowing keeps off cliffs and what not

thelordofcheese

witnessmenow wrote: »

How many people here in the first 2 years of its release were playing a "borrowed" version ... i know i wasnt. Look at the sales.... drastic times call for drastic measures! A few good points about consoles being in the spring of there life at the moment and eventually be unable to keep up with pc

These drastic measure would be more likely to add another layer of complication to the PC market in ther general publics eyes.

It's a stupid system, and i hope it never takes off. I really do not want it to be common place to have to be online to play the single player game i just bought.
It's ****, and you all know it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ìt is pretty ****, but we are heading towards a time when all computers will likely be online all the time.. *shrug*

having a couple of million cars in a country the size of Ireland is pretty **** too, but here we are and we seem to get by.

MooseJam

So will the time come when no new pc titles are released, developers will stop developing because there is no money in it any more and move to console dev

steviec

MooseJam wrote: »

So will the time come when no new pc titles are released, developers will stop developing because there is no money in it any more and move to console dev

Nope.

Anyone can make a PC game. You need to pay for devkits and licensing fees, aswell as pass certification, to make a console game.

It's hard to see the PC market supporting big budget highly ambitious titles like Crysis mind you, but it may still be the lead platform for such games ahead of them getting ported to the consoles (which is exactly what is happening with Crysis)

conzy

UT3 and Crysis having relatively poor sales compared to the top selling console games doesn't really mean the death of the PC games industry...

Also why isnt COD4 PC mentioned on the list?

mcgovern

It seems the figures for UT3 on PC were a complete fabrication, and it in fact sold less than 5k (from ign).
CoD4 on PC sold 4 times what Crysis did, which still puts it no where near the PS3 version, nevermind the 360 version.

conzy

mcgovern wrote: »

It seems the figures for UT3 on PC were a complete fabrication, and it in fact sold less than 5k (from ign).
CoD4 on PC sold 4 times what Crysis did, which still puts it no where near the PS3 version, nevermind the 360 version.

260,000 copies is nothing to frown upon.. Who cares if it sold less than the 360 version? I know that myself and 259,999 other gamers are getting a better experience and thats all that matters.....

And 5k copies of UT3?! thats bull****.... My local game store sold atleast 15 copies... So atleast 1500 copies must have been sold in Ireland alone...

mcgovern

conzymaher wrote: »

260,000 copies is nothing to frown upon.. Who cares if it sold less than the 360 version? I know that myself and 259,999 other gamers are getting a better experience and thats all that matters.....

And 5k copies of UT3?! thats bull****.... My local game store sold atleast 15 copies... So atleast 1500 copies must have been sold in Ireland alone...

All these figures are from NPD, i.e. North America alone (i.e. the figures in the first post, and the ones I mentioned), so how much it sold in Ireland is irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Glad to see you backed up your points with valid facts again and didn't just say something like "I know that myself and 259,999 other gamers are getting a better experience and thats all that matters".

MooseJam

I thought I heard the Microsoft gaming division doesn't make any money, how can they not make any money with millions of sales, am I just totally wrong in thinking that ?

mcgovern

MooseJam wrote: »

I thought I heard the Microsoft gaming division doesn't make any money, how can they not make any money with millions of sales, am I just totally wrong in thinking that ?

Its the entertainment division (or something similar) that doesn't make any money.
Losing lots on the 360 and Zune, making bucketloads on the likes of Halo 3.
Really at the moment they are still just trying to buy market share.

Azza

Microsoft's gaming division was on the verge of actually making money at the start of the year but then they decided they cover the cost of all Xbox 360 that had failed since launch (has something like a 33% failure rate) and extending its warranty for 360's to 3 years. Cost them a billion dollars to do so.

That's also the amount anyalsts reckon Nintendo will loose out due to the current shortages of the Wii console.

User45701

thelordofcheese wrote: »

If you honestly think that, you're lying to yourself.

But im not, there is a reason i didnt buy an x-box - halo is on the pc

i bought a n64 because goldeneye was not on the pc

i have no reason to buy a ps1 because i got a new pc before they came out

didnt buy ps2 because well i didnt buy a ps1 or 3.

Im not into play stations i dont get what they offer, i won a ps3 in work yesterday(3rd in sony sales) but i dont know what to do with it, as i mentioned im thinking of waiting for burnout because burnout and the first gran turismo on the ps1 where good, GT 2 was ****e 3 was bad aswell it got far to boring and far to much focus on the cars instead of the racing.

Grand theft auto was ruined by the ps2 that 3rd game was bollox.

em what other consoles? oh dreamcast i did always like the idea of buying that and the gun for house of the dead but there was not even 1 other interesting game on that console.

Ive noticed that each console tends to have 1 amazing game. but i wouldnt exeatly say there are loads of great console games, no i cant really think of any more then 4 VERY good console games since goldeneye.

I hear that the new CNC game called Kanes wrath will have some revulationry new interface that will "redesign strategy games" on consoles but i hope this is not true, the cnc comunity has become full of miscs recently, last thing we need is them getting re-inforcements. Im not prejudgeing, well actually i am its from experience, its observation not slander or pre judgeing but most console gamers are immature and annoying, i find the adult ones not so bad but teens who have consoles are much more imature gamers than pc gamers and i dont like the way they speak to on that team speak/box live ect.

Does this answer you question in any way? probbley not but i did try.

Kiith wrote: »

This is something people really need to stop saying. Unless you buy an absolute piss poor pc, its not going to obselete in six months. I bought my pc over a year and a half ago (for €1250) and it still plays almost every game on full settings. Crysis, obviously, pisses all over it from a great height. But Bioshock, World in Conflict, Stranglehold etc... all play pretty much perfectly. And its still got at least another year of playing games at medium to high settings.

And i'm not getting involved in this argument (AGAIN!!!!), i'm just pointing out this "obsolete in 6 months" statement is bullcrap.

+1

Azza wrote: »

There is a truly a fantastic selection of games on both consoles but as a single format I think the PC has a better selection of games over any one console.

Good point, a pc was what made me fall in love with games, then i got a saga mega drive, then pc then pc then n64 then pc then pc then pc.
I play consoles and all but there is a certin simplicity with them.

Games can be learnt much easyier on a console. Example: in most groups of friends there would be one person who was a fanatical gamer or still is, i find in every group i have interacted with when it comes to "beatemup" games i dont find them fun because of the difference in skill levels, one person would have that much higher a skill level so the game would not be interesting since i am already sure on the winner but with cnc on the pc itsdown to tatics, even if your **** at the game you can have a better battleplan and a tatic tatic or whatever, there is more to do in . Hmmm thats not a great example, there very different games.

I suppose im just not into consoles, ive been considering getting a x-box360 because of mass effect but id imagine there is not much point, ive played x-boxs before and im notn a big fan of the controlls. Give me A, B, C anyday or a keyboard. I have hear quite alllot of x-boxs get these red circles of death, probbley much like a pc blue screen of death but problems with a pc can be fixed by google. As far as i know x-boxs and the like get returned to manufactures.

games hmm> out of interest how often would you all think an "amazing" game comes out? id say there might be one a year that really hits home

games like the first cnc
final fantisy seven
knights of the old republic
road rash
sonic
mario
tie fighter
metal gear solid (i hear the first one is good)

hmm its a bit too early for all this thinking cause i cant think of any more and i was airiming for seventeen years worth of games because i wanted to name what i thought was the best game each year since i was five

i cant think of any more games now but

Hmm well now im lost. i lost one of my posts this post was 3 quote posts but i lost one of them because my pc crashed and i only had time to copy/paste 2 of them so this might not make much sence

Blowfish

MooseJam wrote: »

So will the time come when no new pc titles are released, developers will stop developing because there is no money in it any more and move to console dev

Absolutely not. The figures between Console sales vs PC sales doesn't represent the state of the market whatsoever because they are missing one glaringly obvious thing, i.e. MMO's. Near the beginning of this year, the PC sales record was shattered when the Burning Crusade (WoW expansion) sold 2.4 million copies...in one day. The total number playing WoW is now 9.3 million per month (For a comparison with the OP, over 2 million of those are in the US). Other figures (in absolutely no way a complete list of the larger ones, just what I happened to find figures for quickly):

Runescape: 6,000,000
Habbo Hotel: 6,000,000
Club Penguin: 4,000,000
Guild Wars: 4,000,000
Webkinz: 3,800,000

Not only that, but from a financial perspective, the longevity of MMO's compared to your average console title is astounding, just look at something like Lineage. It was released in 1998 and *still* has 1,500,000 people paying every single month to play.

These don't even include the Asian games which far far far outstrip the figures of western ones. Most don't release official figures, but one that does is Maplestory, with a mere 50 million players.

The PC games market is in no way dieing. It is however shifting focus.

Kiith

Blowfish wrote: »

Runescape: 6,000,000
Habbo Hotel: 6,000,000
Club Penguin: 4,000,000
Guild Wars: 4,000,000
Webkinz: 3,800,000

Hmm, those figures look a little off to me. There cant be that many people playing Runescape, can there?

And are MMO's helping or hindering the pc market. How many of those 9.3 million people would have gone out and bought other games if the hadnt been playing Warcraft. Some of those people have played the game for 2 years now.

Blowfish

Kiith wrote: »

Hmm, those figures look a little off to me. There cant be that many people playing Runescape, can there?

Scarily enough yes. I can't see why myself as it drove me crazy when I tried to get into it, but it has actually exploded population wise over the past year or two. The income from it (and Habbo Hotel) would be far less than WoW though, as they have free to play options.

It and Habbo Hotel are still significant though, because most of their playerbase is in the 13-18 age group. The average age of MMO players for subscription based MMO's is around 28, so the fact that there is such a hugh number of younger players essentially growing up playing MMO's means there's a huge 'feeder' market into the subscription based ones.

And are MMO's helping or hindering the pc market. How many of those 9.3 million people would have gone out and bought other games if the hadnt been playing Warcraft. Some of those people have played the game for 2 years now.

That's exactly my point . The fact that so many people are playing MMO's rather than other games is exactly why the sales figures for offline games look so poor. The players haven't disappeared, there are more than ever, they've just changed from buying lots of single player games, to sticking with a few games, and paying for those for months on end.

Looking at it from an investors perspective, although the initial cost for an MMO will be much greater than a single player game, the fact that 10 years down the line it's possible that several million people will still be paying every single month means that there is definitely still money to be had.

the_syco

Kiith wrote: »

i.e. Starforce, which was a pain in the hole, was increadibly hard to crack

The reason I hated that piece of crap was that it fuxored my system after I installed a game with Starforce on it.

yoyo

the_syco wrote: »

The reason I hated that piece of crap was that it fuxored my system after I installed a game with Starforce on it.

Same too, but its not used much nowadays anymore and I think they improved it

Nick

bizmark

I argee 100% with Blowfish iv been playing Eve online for over 2 year's and have 3 paying accounts its just more enjoyable to play a mmo with 40,000 others on the same server doing what you wish working towords a goal ,killing people and geting hate mail etc than playing another bloody tech demo against god awful ai with insane system requirements.

Imho single player game's in general need to get back to good game play instead of fancy over priced graphics tour de force's i still find myself going back to replay vampire the mascurade bloodlines because its just so excellent and iv yet to find a rts better than Dawn of war how old is that? 3-4 years? plus ill be glady giveing relic more money when the new expantion comes out despite the dodgy graphics same applys to half life 2 design the game with good gameplay/storie and poeple will buy try to sell a game purely on how it looks and i think people are getting to jaded to care.

Dont think pirateing has as much to do with it either stardock designed gal civ 2 with out any copy protection but it was a good game and became a big hit spawning 2 expantions didnt hurt its sales much.

conzy

But Eve looks awesome too

bizmark

conzymaher wrote: »

But Eve looks awesome too

Recently yes but for 99.9% of that time eve looked nice like but it wasnt uber wasnt up there with the likes of x3 for instant now it is very nice but tbh i still play on the classic graphics because i dual/triple run clients at time cant do that with the new graphics upgrade's....However i admit it is nice to have the option of the nicer graphics when running around in low sec pew pewing with just my main but its not game makeing its not what eve is about unlike some fps's so you dont miss it when its not all blinged up.

thelordofcheese

User45701 wrote: »

But im not, there is a reason i didnt buy an x-box - halo is on the pc

*snip*
Does this answer you question in any way? probbley not but i did try.

No, because you seem to be living on a different planet to the rest of us.
I cannot fathom how you can honestly believe that rubbish, the misguided notion that there havn't been more than 4 good console games since goldeneye is actually painfull to read.

Fine you're a PC gamer, fair enough, but don't try and pass off consoles are inferior to PC by conviently forgetting everything thats ever been released in order to make yourself feel better about your platform choice.

Sweet zombie jesus...........

conzy

Graphics are important in Single Player titles because if it looks pants you wont be able to get immersed in the game...

But most people who play multiplayer fps on the PC definitely favor Performance over visual quality. Being able to see your opponents outside is more important than lovely bloom / HDR

robby^5

I've read a fair bit of the thread (long as it is) and I'd like ot add my two cents.

A huge advantage consoles have over PC's is the social (multiplayer) aspect to consoles. Not only do they have online play, up to 4 people at once can use one at the same time, as opposed to PC gaming which is for the most part (unless your at a lan or playing worms) 1 person alone at their pc. This social aspect can been seen in the success of the Wii of course.

Also I find that a lot of the people who complain about joypads seem to be a more elitist element of the pc gaming community, what i'd call fanboys. If you have skills, and depending on the game they can be great and very accurate, the learning curve is a bit steeper than mouse and keypad though tbh, which is pretty straight forward point and click.

Also User45701, seriously, none of what your saying is in anyway close to reality. Basically it just shows you havent been involved or even following the console gaming scene at all.

papu

robby^5 wrote: »

I've read a fair bit of the thread (long as it is) and I'd like ot add my two cents.

A huge advantage consoles have over PC's is the social (multiplayer) aspect to consoles. Not only do they have online play, up to 4 people at once can use one at the same time, as opposed to PC gaming which is for the most part (unless your at a lan or playing worms) 1 person alone at their pc. This social aspect can been seen in the success of the Wii of course.

Also I find that a lot of the people who complain about joypads seem to be a more elitist element of the pc gaming community, what i'd call fanboys. If you have skills, and depending on the game they can be great and very accurate, the learning curve is a bit steeper than mouse and keypad though tbh, which is pretty straight forward point and click.

omg you couldnt be any wronger , ever hear of the internets ?? its this great thing that let you use apps such as Ventrilo , teamspeak and skype? these coupled with the huge pc gaming community and online clans make playin pc on the internet a much more enjoyable experiance than going onto XBL and being called a fag.
its easy to be good with a mouse , its easier to be good with a joypad , and its much much harder to be good with a mouse and keyboard than a joypad , a joypad has what 8 buttons? 2 analoge sticks , a keyboard can have 50+ buttons a mouse with 9 different customisables.

+ lan events held ever couple of months lets 200+ gamers meet and great , with only a small handfull of console owners going.
+ moving a pc around is as difficult as moving a Console around.

conzy

Robby..........

Online multiplayer Gaming has been on the PC since the early 90s Oh and its free

bizmark

robby^5 wrote: »

I've read a fair bit of the thread (long as it is) and I'd like ot add my two cents.

A huge advantage consoles have over PC's is the social (multiplayer) aspect to consoles. Not only do they have online play, up to 4 people at once can use one at the same time, as opposed to PC gaming which is for the most part (unless your at a lan or playing worms) 1 person alone at their pc. This social aspect can been seen in the success of the Wii of course.

Im sorry what? im online right now in eve with 40,000 others talking actively with maybe 20 and im on msn at the moment with m8s from other game's i can fire up my web cam and see them or vent/ts and talk to them or both how is this not social? hell here i am involed in a social discussion on my pc based about the pc not being as social as consoles...

As for keyboard being easyer theres a difference between easy and just being better than the awkuard control system other games platforms use that are compensated for by offering auto aim assistance and other crap or "cheating" as us pc gamers call it ;p

steviec

bizmark wrote: »

Im sorry what? im online right now in eve with 40,000 others talking actively with maybe 20 and im on msn at the moment with m8s from other game's i can fire up my web cam and see them or vent/ts and talk to them or both how is this not social? hell here i am involed in a social discussion on my pc based about the pc not being as social as consoles...

Playing with real friends on the couch will always be superior to playing with people on the internet in my opinion. No amount of communications tools will make up for that.

conzy

steviec wrote: »

Playing with real friends on the couch will always be superior to playing with people on the internet in my opinion. No amount of communications tools will make up for that.

You got us there.... Pc gamers have no friends

robby^5

COUGH, let me rephrase that....

Console = 4 people at once on the same console in the same room enjoying one anothers company

PC = 1 person, alone sure talking with people on TS or whatever, but its not the same.

Thus there a far more social aspect to consoles, i wouldnt call talking ot people on Vent socialising.

papu

steviec wrote: »

Playing with real friends on the couch will always be superior to playing with people on the internet in my opinion. No amount of communications tools will make up for that.

and playing with real friends at a lan on your own rig , on your own monitor will always be superior than playing on a couch with 4 people on split screen:rolleyes:

robby^5

papu wrote: »

and playing with real friends at a lan on your own rig , on your own monitor will always be superior than playing on a couch with 4 people on split screen:rolleyes:

Going to a LAN is a lot more effort that bringing a controller round to a mates house.

And LANs are only attended by a minority of gamers.

papu

robby^5 wrote: »

COUGH, let me rephrase that....

Console = 4 people at once on the same console in the same room enjoying one anothers company

PC = 1 person, alone sure talking with people on TS or whatever, but its not the same.

Thus there a far more social aspect to consoles, i wouldnt call talking ot people on Vent socialising.

do you have four people by all the time to play console?

it is just as easy to get 4 pc gamers together than 4 consolers.

Going to a LAN is a lot more effort that bringing a controller round to a mates house.

And LANs are only attended by a minority of gamers.

no it isnt , pc , router lan cables , + lan setups are usually left up overnight + filesharing and whut not... and yes , but 200 people > 4 people

and id prefer to game on my 22" monitor , than a quarter of some tv

steviec

papu wrote: »

no it isnt , pc , router lan cables , + lan setups are usually left up overnight + filesharing and whut not

That's easier than picking up a joypad? Really?

papu

its not a whole much harder , that joypad is massive!

for that matter , you can lan with laptops over wireless networks so :P

robby^5

papu wrote: »

do you have four people by all the time to play console?

Yep, friends on XBox live just like with PC's, or my mates can come down to my house with a controller anytime and play, without having to dismantle, reassemble and find space for 3 other pc's in my house

papu wrote: »

it is just as easy to get 4 pc gamers together than 4 consolers.

Not by a longshot dude, your lying to yourself. Unless your going to tell me your mates all bring their rigs over to yours on a Friday night for a few games...you can play online all you want, but want i'm talking about is a social element PC gaming lacks.

papu wrote: »

no it isnt , pc , router lan cables , + lan setups are usually left up overnight + filesharing and whut not... and yes , but 200 people > 4 people

Take PC + Peripherals away from desk = effort, transport it all to a LAN = effort, 24 hours of gaming is always fun and I love LANS too but its not as easy as even having a console lan.

I wouldnt call dragging my rig over to a friends house as easy as bringing over a controller.

papu wrote: »

its not a whole much harder , that joypad is massive!

for that matter , you can lan with laptops over wireless networks so :P

Lan with laptops wow.


Oh and back to my point about controllers being harder to use, go play Halo 3 and see how many headshots some guys get, which as most of you know is frikkin hard with analog sticks, whereas while it does take skill to play all games, i would argue aiming in MOST fps games is easier with a mouse and keyboard. Obviously this is due to a mouse being a little more intuitive than the anolog stick, but still it doesnt take away from the fact that it takes a lot of skill to get really good using a joypad.

papu

Not by a longshot dude, your lying to yourself. Unless your going to tell me your mates all bring their rigs over to yours on a Friday night for a few games...you can play online all you want, but want i'm talking about is a social element PC gaming lacks.

no i can get 5 other people to bring their pc's on friday , and stay till sat evening.

I wouldnt call dragging my rig over to a friends house as easy as bringing over a controller.

no but its more rewarding , again 22" screen > 1/4 of a tv.

Oh and back to my point about controllers being harder to use, go play Halo 3 and see how many headshots some guys get, which as most of you know is frikkin hard with analog sticks, whereas while it does take skill to play all games, i would argue aiming in MOST fps games is easier with a mouse and keyboard. Obviously this is due to a mouse being a little more intuitive than the anolog stick, but still it doesnt take away from the fact that it takes a lot of skill to get really good using a joypad.

back to the point of autoaim on consoles , i could pick up a joypad an do fairly well against halo3 players , i did this during gamecon. joypads have a learning curve of figuring out the buttons.

conzy

Analogue sticks are extremely inaccurate and only work because of the auto aim or "aim assist" or whatever you want to call it....

A mouse has per pixel accuracy, so the chances of missing are a LOT more than they are with an analogue stick... FPS on a console is so slow and boring. I am not exageating when i say it takes like half a second to turn around...

Console fps is just so handicapped and basic compared to PC fps....

And 4 players using one screen is just LOL, you can just glance and see where the opponent is and you get a nice 320*240 gaming experience and a HUGE 640*360 experience if you have a HDTV :eek:

Azza

With regards mobility consoles are abit more friendly to move around to a mates gaff and to get working. A little bit tricky if you want to network them locally to avoid split screening which does detract quite abit from some games.

Its the pick up and play ability that is a key factor for consoles it just so much less hassle at times. No worries about firewalls, network cards not being detected, windows crashing, drivers and patches etc.
You can get pretty good at setting up PC's if your experienced enough and in time if you prepare your machine right you can cut down alot of hassle. But they can be alot more troublesome at times no doubt about it.
If you do get it working you can do more stuff like file sharing and watch TV programs etc on you pc.

As much fun as the console is with your friends around and you might be having more craic as your friends are there to be slagged of, humilated in person etc
from a gaming point of view the sheer number of players online in PC gaming makes the games more enjoyable. You will in all honesty not have the numbers sitting around your house with consoles nor do you have the quality of mutiplayer games. Not saying they are bad games and they still are fun, just you have better games and a gaming experience (maybe not the social experience you have with the mates around but it can still be fun) from a mutiplayer point of view on the PC.

robby^5

papu wrote: »

no i can get 5 other people to bring their pc's on friday , and stay till sat evening.

I'm sorry but I very much doubt that'd be something you'd do regularly, if you do, you're part of a huge minority and fair play to you.

Overall, people dont do that man, but millions and millions of people do play stuff liek Wii sports together regularly.

papu wrote: »

no but its more rewarding , again 22" screen > 1/4 of a tv.

Well tbh I'm not picky, because its fun to play with friends, screen size doesnt really matter, but a lot of people (including myself) are getting big hd lcd's which are awesome for multiplayer.