Will the PC ultimately win the console war?

gizmo

Blowfish wrote: »

You are completely underestimating the longevity of MMO's. Lineage was released in 1998. At it's peak it had about 2 million subscribers. 11 years on, it still has almost 1 million subscribers.
Players wise, WoW isn't anywhere near the biggest. Maple story has over 100 million accounts total. Farmville had 56 million playing in September.

I am well aware of MMOs longevity, hell Ultima Online has been around even longer and even got another expansion pack sometime in September. The point I'm trying to make is, if WoW disappeared tomorrow then there would be a huge hole in PC-based gaming revenues. If any of it competitors disappeared then the affect would not be as severe. I'm not referring to the MMO market as it is indeed huge, I'm referring to a particular heavy-weight title. This also has nothing to do with concurrent users, this is simply the amount the company makes each month from active subs.

Farmville also has no bearing on the PC as a market for AAA games which is what this entire debate is about.

Blowfish wrote: »

Perfect example, Lineage as mentioned earlier:

Even if we assume there were only ever 1 million subscribers, 1,000,000x$15(per month)x12(months)x11(years) = a revenue of 2 billion.

By comparison, the entire Halo franchise has brought in 1 billion.

You also need to factor in the capital required to setup the networking infrastructure as well as the ongoing costs incurred. Halo, although probably having a bigger development budget initially, did not have these costs.

leninbenjamin

gizmo wrote: »

I am well aware of MMOs longevity, hell Ultima Online has been around even longer and even got another expansion pack sometime in September. The point I'm trying to make is, if WoW disappeared tomorrow then there would be a huge hole in PC-based gaming revenues. If any of it competitors disappeared then the affect would not be as severe. I'm not referring to the MMO market as it is indeed huge, I'm referring to a particular heavy-weight title. This also has nothing to do with concurrent users, this is simply the amount the company makes each month from active subs.

Your arguments are making less and less sense as this debate goes on. So if WoW disappeared tomorrow, all it's customers just magically disappear from the market? So what do they spend their money on? Penny whistles and moon pies?

Companies die, competitors step in, capitalism prevails. Some customers will leave the market permanently, but the emergence of new brands will also attract new customers. Ultimately WoW is just a game, a brand name if you will, it's entirely replaceable. If there's a demand for the product, the sector reorganises, and it survives. It would require a serious demographic shift to take out an entire sector such as the PC MMO.

gizmo wrote: »

Farmville also has no bearing on the PC as a market for AAA games which is what this entire debate is about.

Another ridiculous statement. Casual games be a very different beast, but at the end of the day, they are competing for the same disposable income. They are VERY relevant to this debate.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Blowfish wrote: »

You are completely underestimating the longevity of MMO's. Lineage was released in 1998. At it's peak it had about 2 million subscribers. 11 years on, it still has almost 1 million subscribers.
Players wise, WoW isn't anywhere near the biggest. Maple story has over 100 million accounts total. Farmville had 56 million playing in September.

Concurrent users wise, Zhengtu Online's peak is 2.1 million, Fantasy Westward Journey has hit 1.5 million. WoW by comparison hasn't yet hit 1 million.

I think people are severely underestimating how huge a percentage of gaming the MMO market actually is. I've already shown how large the numbers are, so lets look at revenue. Perfect example, Lineage as mentioned earlier:

Even if we assume there were only ever 1 million subscribers, 1,000,000x$15(per month)x12(months)x11(years) = a revenue of 2 billion.

By comparison, the entire Halo franchise has brought in 1 billion.

Even things like LoTRO, which as you mentioned as being much smaller fry. 200,000x15(per month)x32(months)+(box sales, 200,000x2(expansion)x40) = $112 million. Not exactly struggling are they.

No point talking about games that have created no revenue directly...

gizmo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Your arguments are making less and less sense as this debate goes on. So if WoW disappeared tomorrow, all it's customers just magically disappear from the market? So what do they spend their money on? Penny whistles and moon pies?

Not in the slightest, the issue is however, would its 11.5m subscribers continue to be active PC gamers?

The other issue I raised was the barriers to entry into the MMO entry which, along with that 800lb gorilla in the room, are also extremely high. Wasn't it Bobby Kotick himself who highlighted the massive financial investment required in order to compete with WoW?

Point of the matter is, the MMO market on the PC will never die, however if WoW were to go I could see it shrinking both in terms of people willing to continue on with other MMOs and with those willing to stay on the PC platform in general.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Another ridiculous statement. Casual games be a very different beast, but at the end of the day, they are competing for the same disposable income. They are VERY relevant to this debate.

Not the same disposable income, it's coming from a completely different type of gamer.

Perhaps, but if Farmville was the future of PC gaming I would bet Overheal and co wouldn't be beating their chests about the awesomeness of PC gaming either.

leninbenjamin

gizmo wrote: »

Point of the matter is, the MMO market on the PC will never die, however if WoW were to go I could see it shrinking both in terms of people willing to continue on with other MMOs and with those willing to stay on the PC platform in general.

Looking at the recent trends i don't see a single figure to back up such an opinion. Even if WoW is the monopoly, the recent growth in revenues in this sector is staggering, particularly in China where the market is really beginning to diversify. Secondly, the barriers exist because WoW is such a monopoly in the first place, remove Blizzard and it's a level playing field again. So, you're point is moot.

gizmo wrote: »

Not the same disposable income, it's coming from a completely different type of gamer.

It's one and the same, whether you like it or not. MS, Sony and the Wii cannot survive off the 'hardcore gamer' you refer to, new blood is essential and in the past few years the 'hardcore gamer' market has become pretty saturated. The Survival of the AAA depends as much on the attraction of new customers to the market, the same new customers who Sony and MS will be duking it out with Farmville and Mafia wars for. There is no point in having a discussion on the future of gaming if you simply ignore this sector.

gizmo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Looking at the recent trends i don't see a single figure to back up such an opinion.

Well considering an MMO market without WoW will only ever be an opinion as I can't see it going anywhere soon. That being said, my rationale is that since many players only play MMO games exclusively and have shunned most newcomers to the market, there is no reason to think that they will stick around if WoW were to disappear. Either way though, more an opinion than anything else.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Secondly, the barriers exist because WoW is such a monopoly in the first place, remove Blizzard and it's a level playing field again. So, you're point is moot.

The barrier to entry still exist for all MMOs, the point Kotick made was in relation to an MMO superseding WoW. One need only look at the looses made by Funcom with Age Of Conan to see how bad things can go when they do go wrong.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

It's one and the same, whether you like it or not. MS, Sony and the Wii cannot survive off the 'hardcore gamer' you refer to, new blood is essential and in the past few years the 'hardcore gamer' market has become pretty saturated. The Survival of the AAA depends as much on the attraction of new customers to the market, the same new customers who Sony and MS will be duking it out with Farmville and Mafia wars for. There is no point in having a discussion on the future of gaming if you simply ignore this sector.

Well if you want to take something from the likes of Farmville et all then it should be the popularity of casual games and micro-transactions. In the case of the former, one needs to be wary of an over-saturated market (look at the Apple AppStore for evidence of this) and in the latter, well we've already seen evidence of this with the likes of DA:O where players were greeted with the request to purchase DLC by an NPC in order to accept his quest.

Either way, both of these factors are big game changers and the reason I was staying away from them was because, in the context of this debate, it wasn't the type of PC gaming most people were advocating.

hooradiation

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Interesting. Have you much experience yourself?

Enough

leninbenjamin wrote: »

That was true 5 - 10 years ago, but my experience with the latest generation differs. Every tried developing for the Xbox360? Limited render targets compared to the PC limits the post processing effects one can add. Ever try programming for the Cell? it's not exactly a walk in the park...

While none of the above is wrong, it's not exactly right either. The simple fact that the hardware you start with is the exact same as the hardware you test the final product on. This saves a tonne in terms of testing alone and makes life a hell of a lot easier. Yes, you have limits on what you can do but they are known at the start of a project and you can plan accordingly.

cnocbui wrote: »

High end PC gaming is for geeks. Thinking it is the future of gaming is naive, wishful thinking fantasy.

This. a thousand times this.
It's never going away, but high end PC gaming is never going to dominate the market in the way consoles currently do.

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

So all those silly console noobs talkin

you know when people complain about PC gamers being elitist cocks? This is what they're on about. Please stop thinking your some kind of gaming master race, you're nothing special.
At all.

leninbenjamin

hooradiation wrote: »

While none of the above is wrong, it's not exactly right either. The simple fact that the hardware you start with is the exact same as the hardware you test the final product on. This saves a tonne in terms of testing alone and makes life a hell of a lot easier. Yes, you have limits on what you can do but they are known at the start of a project and you can plan accordingly.

Yeah, I overlooked the testing side of things I guess, I've seen a little of how difficult this can become all right.

My main niche is audio though, and there are literally certain things I physically cannot do on a console that I can do on a PC, particularly when it comes to low level wav manipulation, certain libraries etc. just wont work without fundamental changes that can become especially time consuming, if not impossible in some cases. So there's a considerable downside to developing for console as well, depending on what your approach is I guess.

Venom

gizmo wrote: »

Well considering an MMO market without WoW will only ever be an opinion as I can't see it going anywhere soon. That being said, my rationale is that since many players only play MMO games exclusively and have shunned most newcomers to the market, there is no reason to think that they will stick around if WoW were to disappear. Either way though, more an opinion than anything else.


The barrier to entry still exist for all MMOs, the point Kotick made was in relation to an MMO superseding WoW. One need only look at the looses made by Funcom with Age Of Conan to see how bad things can go when they do go wrong.


Well if you want to take something from the likes of Farmville et all then it should be the popularity of casual games and micro-transactions. In the case of the former, one needs to be wary of an over-saturated market (look at the Apple AppStore for evidence of this) and in the latter, well we've already seen evidence of this with the likes of DA:O where players were greeted with the request to purchase DLC by an NPC in order to accept his quest.

Either way, both of these factors are big game changers and the reason I was staying away from them was because, in the context of this debate, it wasn't the type of PC gaming most people were advocating.

The majority of MMO players tend to float around between a couple of different games rather than just stick with one so even if WoW vanished in a puff of smoke the majority would have other games to slot back into. Do you honestly think WoW players wouldnt even try another game?

gizmo

Venom wrote: »

The majority of MMO players tend to float around between a couple of different games rather than just stick with one so even if WoW vanished in a puff of smoke the majority would have other games to slot back into. Do you honestly think WoW players wouldnt even try another game?

Well I'm only drawing from personal experience here but the majority of WoW players I know seem to play that game exclusively bar the odd foray into non-MMO related games.

I do find the sheer number of subscribers to WoW interesting though. For instance, what were all of these gamers playing before, MMO wise? I realise that MMOs have been hugely successful in Asia for some time but in Western countries they haven't been as successful, WoW standards wise. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is, and I'm only suggesting here, do a lot of WoW players play it because they like WoW or because they like MMOs and as a result, will they stay with the genre after it's gone. Which leads me to the next issue...

No, I'm not saying the above in the slightest but in the context of this debate, what is to keep them on the PC? The next big move for MMOs is onto the consoles and while many would argue that the home of the genre is the PC thanks to the keyboard and mouse, many would have said that pre-Halo/MW for the FPS.

Overheal

gizmo wrote: »

Okay then, go to Komplett and do it. Post a link to your cart when you're done.

I want a case, motherboard, CPU, RAM, graphics card, hard drive, DVD drive, PSU, keyboard, mouse AND a legit Windows operating system. You don't need to include a monitor.


Games are indeed cheaper but the "play better" thing is silly, for instance sports and racing games do NOT play better on the PC.

http://gizmodo.com/5437251/do+it+yourself-pc-builders-guide-how-cheap-is-too-cheap

So the first build there is 450 euros. Whoop de doo. But then again, youre paying for a lot more power than a console provides.

add 20 for a mouse and keyboard.

Well I'm only drawing from personal experience here but the majority of WoW players I know seem to play that game exclusively bar the odd foray into non-MMO related games.

WoW, L4D, TF2, Sins, Oblivion, Metroid, oh hell, you know what, Im not elaborating here - I think your experience is irregular.

If you mean to suggest they are better on consoles, then I say bollox to that! I've been playing racing and sports games on the PC since the days of MSDOS. Overall, there is little between them, however I will always go with the PC version, for one crucial reason; most PC ports allow you to totally rebind the keys and that can be a massive massive boon in something like FIFA. Drives me daft having to relearn the controls for every console title...

You can always add a console controller, your existing Television, and run it with higher graphics to boot.

Cunny-Funt

hooradiation wrote: »

you know when people complain about PC gamers being elitist cocks? This is what they're on about. Please stop thinking your some kind of gaming master race, you're nothing special.
At all.

You have to understand that its hard not to sound elitist when some console players come out with stuff like "wwwaaaah I don't wanna play on PC , its too hard , I don't know how to use windows, waaaaah" or "online is better on a console" or "pads are better for FPS than m&kb's" or "Halo 3 is the best game ever made"

Its like being into film and talking to someone who claims to be into film also who keeps insisting the police academy movies are the most sophisticated and ground breaking movies ever made. He's gonna call you an elitist if you correct him of course. :rolleyes:



:pac:

wayne040576

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

You have to understand that its hard not to sound elitist when some console players come out with stuff like "wwwaaaah I don't wanna play on PC , its too hard , I don't know how to use windows, waaaaah" or "online is better on a console" or "pads are better for FPS than m&kb's" or "Halo 3 is the best game ever made"

Its like being into film and talking to someone who claims to be into film also who keeps insisting the police academy movies are the most sophisticated and ground breaking movies ever made. He's gonna call you an elitist if you correct him of course. :rolleyes:



:pac:

That it true but, with PC gamers you are dealing with many levels of nerdom, some who will even look down on other pc gamers because they can't build their own machines. I like to tweak my systems to some extent, sure only this week I had to make changes to my linux boot loader in order to trick windows 7 into thinking it was on a different hard drive than it was just so I could play a game I got in the steam sale. I can do stuff like that in my sleep now but I wouldn't put other gamers down who can't\don't want to do things like that. But there are many who would.

All you have to do is look one page up on this thread to see one PC gamer putting down ANOTHER pc gamer for saying a Dell machine was good enough to play games on for a lot of people. This is the type of attitude that drives people away from pc gaming.

I got got Heroes of Newerth a while back and noticed it seems to have attracted some of the more obnoxious players from DOTA who take their games far too seriously. On one of my first games I had every member of my team hurling abuse at me for making mistakes on a game that had been labelled "Noobs only! no experienced players". I was stil trying to work out the interface at the time.

Maximilian

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

You have to understand that its hard not to sound elitist when some console players come out with stuff like "wwwaaaah I don't wanna play on PC , its too hard , I don't know how to use windows, waaaaah" or "online is better on a console" or "pads are better for FPS than m&kb's" or "Halo 3 is the best game ever made"

Its like being into film and talking to someone who claims to be into film also who keeps insisting the police academy movies are the most sophisticated and ground breaking movies ever made. He's gonna call you an elitist if you correct him of course. :rolleyes:



:pac:

lol - well put.

Sort of the same thing as never missing what you never had.

PogMoThoin

As someone who's been a pc gamer for years and only recently got a 360 (got Young Fella one for xmas) I'm a little pissed off at some of the things I expected.

1, Its completely closed source, i expected to be able to be able to do something with it or even put XP on it but afterwards read that its not possible as its not got the same architecture as pc, its designed to do just one job only, which it just about does, (see points 3 and 4). More closed source than Apple (who I fcuking detest).

2, One reason for getting it was to play HD content, but the media player on the Xbox is shíte. I'm not a fan of WMP, Tversity is ok, but not a patch on XBMC, in fact I've already made space to put old Xbox back on shelf beside it, where it belongs. There's no media centre as good as XBMC, pity it lacks the ability to play HD

3, The graphics are poor. As a pc gamer I'm used to playing at 1920x1200 so anything upscaled from 720p looks ****e. Forza 3 doesn't look a patch on GRiD on pc with the enhanced graphics mod and no antialiasing, OMG it looked terrible with jaggies everywhere, ouch my eyes

4, Poor framerates. The games soemtimes feel very laggy, I suspect framerates to be in the high teen, low 20's, barely payable sometimes, but very noticable. There's also a noticable wireless controller input lag

5 Xbox Live. Its all about extracting money. When the free months sub is up that'll be it, mod the 360 and keep it off the net

As I said, We got the Xbox as an addition to the setup we already got, mainly to play HD content, but I feel utterly disappointed. The Young fella is of the same opinion, not too impressed either and after 4 days he's back playing on his pc. He prefers the comfort of pc as he needs everyones approval to play on the tv.

wayne040576

PogMoThoin wrote: »

As someone who's been a pc gamer for years and only recently got a 360 (got Young Fella one for xmas) I'm a little pissed off at some of the things I expected.

1, Its completely closed source, i expected to be able to be able to do something with it or even put XP on it but afterwards read that its not possible as its not got the same architecture as pc, its designed to do just one job only, which it just about does, (see points 3 and 4). More closed source than Apple (who I fcuking detest).

2, One reason for getting it was to play HD content, but the media player on the Xbox is shíte. I'm not a fan of WMP, Tversity is ok, but not a patch on XBMC, in fact I've already made space to put old Xbox back on shelf beside it, where it belongs. There's no media centre as good as XBMC, pity it lacks the ability to play HD

3, The graphics are poor. As a pc gamer I'm used to playing at 1920x1200 so anything upscaled from 720p looks ****e. Forza 3 doesn't look a patch on GRiD on pc with the enhanced graphics mod and no antialiasing, OMG it looked terrible with jaggies everywhere, ouch my eyes

4, Poor framerates. The games soemtimes feel very laggy, I suspect framerates to be in the high teen, low 20's, barely payable sometimes, but very noticable. There's also a noticable wireless controller input lag

5 Xbox Live. Its all about extracting money. When the free months sub is up that'll be it, mod the 360 and keep it off the net

As I said, We got the Xbox as an addition to the setup we already got, mainly to play HD content, but I feel utterly disappointed. The Young fella is of the same opinion, not too impressed either and after 4 days he's back playing on his pc. He prefers the comfort of pc as he needs everyones approval to play on the tv.

They've locked down the system a lot to prevent piracy\cheating. The ps3 isactually more open in that resepct as it lets you change the hard drive or install another os. Funny considering Sony's history with locking down hardware.
Another thing you should be pissed at it that it seems microsoft themselves are neglecting the pc platform in favour of the 360. The Games for windows thing was never really expanded on and should now be so much better coming from the company that owns the OS.

Maximilian

I have a PS3 and though I don't play it for games at all, I think as a blu-ray & media player it's great.

dreamers75

wayne040576 wrote: »

T The Games for windows thing was never really expanded on and should now be so much better coming from the company that owns the OS.

thats a market thing, they knew the PC would eventually hammer the xbox so had both. Like some car makers owning the 5 choices you have in a saloon car etc:


Win 7 has bought GFL back into the world and will move on from there with Dx11 games. untill the Xbox 1080 comes out.

wayne040576

dreamers75 wrote: »

thats a market thing, they knew the PC would eventually hammer the xbox so had both. Like some car makers owning the 5 choices you have in a saloon car etc:


Win 7 has bought GFL back into the world and will move on from there with Dx11 games. untill the Xbox 1080 comes out.

I think it may be too late for GFL. It already has a bad rep. So many gamers try to avoid it. At this stage, had they put the work in, it could have at least been an equal to steam. I know they recently introduced the online shop, but again, it may be too late. Remember "tray and play"? that never took off.
They pretty much kept quiet about gaming in windows 7 after all the hype with vista.

http://kotaku.com/5384543/windows-7-what-happened-to-gaming

Greyfox

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

You have to understand that its hard not to sound elitist when some console players come out with stuff like "wwwaaaah I don't wanna play on PC , its too hard , I don't know how to use windows, waaaaah" or "online is better on a console" or "pads are better for FPS than m&kb's" or "Halo 3 is the best game ever made"

Its like being into film and talking to someone who claims to be into film also who keeps insisting the police academy movies are the most sophisticated and ground breaking movies ever made. He's gonna call you an elitist if you correct him of course. :rolleyes:



:pac:

Really, how about accepting that not everyone has the same opinion as you?

It's not that they don't know how to use windows, it's the fact that they don't find installing, downloading and using a keyboard for games to be any fun. So what if installing a game or downloading a patch is a piece of cake, it's something that many believe they shouldn't have to do in order to enjoy a game. Halo 3 is nowhere near the best game ever but the fact of the matter is theirs a lot of great console games out their and in my opinion many of the best games ever made have at least appeared on a console first.

I work all day on a PC and spend at least a few hours a week on my laptop but when it comes to playing games I find them far more enjoyable, immersive and entertaining on a console then on a PC. I've always hated the PC as a gaming machine with a very, very deep passion.

I can understand why so many people love using a M&K (I've played a few games using this) but I just never took to it as when you have been using a control pad since the Nes I don't believe it's possible for me to ever prefer the M&K and those who prefer a control pad are entitled to have this preference. For me PC gaming is for people who feel at home with error messages, downloading patches, upgrading etc, I just want to have fun and for me theirs a little bit of hassle with PC gaming.

Overheal

For me PC gaming is for people who feel at home with error messages, downloading patches, upgrading etc, I just want to have fun and for me theirs a little bit of hassle with PC gaming.

Except that you only run into error messages and things if youre keeping shyte care of your computer anyway. As for patching and updating, its becoming just as much a reality for consoles, So I dont follow you there. Between needing to install games on a console (tray and play is truly dead) and downloading patches to play online, how different are you? Nevermind its not too often that an update gets launched for PC that will brick my computer.

No. They all have the same ****ing problems. And worse with consoles, when theyre all homogenous, a problem with one usually means a problem with another. Whether its the RRoD or getting your PS3 Bricked.

And how long are console gamers going to let the gamepad argument loose? Everythings USB these days. Not that porting console pads has ever been an issue.

but if Farmville was the future of PC gaming I would bet Overheal and co wouldn't be beating their chests about the awesomeness of PC gaming either.

Why am I being labeled the leader of the PC Crowd maybe I just make the most sense.

As for casual games they exist on both PC and Console. Little Big Planet just happens to be much sexier that Farmville. Then you have World of Goo (PC, Wii, etc) and it wont be long before Popcap Games rules its own microverse. Because theres zombies on my lawn. I cant tell you how often I would have that running at work, just to be able to tab back into Quickbooks to do up someone's quote. And do have any idea how busy you look to a customer if you're playing Plants Versus Zombies on your computer Screen? Very Busy, if they cant see what youre doing.

BostonB

I don't understand this thread. The PC lost the war a long time ago.
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=15831

But the console market is simply much bigger.

The PC will always have a place as PC games can do things consoles can't.

Overheal

Boston:

The stats are based on retail sales. Online game subscriptions and digital distribution are not included. And that online gaming market is increasing rapidly, especially with PC gamers. UPDATE: Starting with 2005, NPD tracks online PC sales.

so lets start with WoW and assume all of 11.5 million subscribers pay $15/mo. but more realistically between regioning and 6/mo pay plans lets say $13/mo.

In which case one game alone is responsible for $150 million per month. oopsie.
And its not the only MMO out there or anything, with EvE SWG, CoH, etc. etc. nor contrastingly does it include XBL subscriptions but im not familiar with how many steady subscribers it has.

Subscriptions play a huge part in the industry. You cant exclude their figures

jaykhunter

I can't wrap my head around constantly upgrading PC hardware to keep up with modern gaming. If someone can direct me to a cheap (under 500 euros) PC that can play Resident Evil 5 flawlessly I'll concede PCs are worth it and probably go get one :pac::pac::pac:

Maybe i'm just a bit communist but I like the way consoles (eg all Wiis) are all the same, everyone's using the same hardware and software and so there's only a difference in broadband speed...unlike PCs.

Don't ya love the way the PC is leeching off Microsoft's Xbox 360; getting games late etc. (sorry, anti-PC flame there) ...although I think FPS would be better served on a PC...

Overheal

jaykhunter wrote: »

I can't wrap my head around constantly upgrading PC hardware to keep up with modern gaming. If someone can direct me to a cheap (under 500 euros) PC that can play Resident Evil 5 flawlessly I'll concede PCs are worth it and probably go get one :pac::pac::pac:

By flawlessly you mean bleeding edge. Your console doesnt do Bleeding Edge. Your console hardware is 4 years old and your game is scaled back to console settings. Why should a PC have to, under your criteria?

Maybe i'm just a bit communist but I like the way consoles (eg all Wiis) are all the same, everyone's using the same hardware and software and so there's only a difference in broadband speed...unlike PCs.

Which presents a major drawback when there are manufacturing flaws or corrupted firmware updates.

While homogeneous hardware once upon a time used to mean Tray and Play - thats out the window now as well.

As for comptetitive advantages, they plateau significantly when you reached a certain spec based on the game. If youre playing low res 10fps - yeah, youre gonna suck balls. once you hit the 720p range a smooth 30 frames theres not nearly as much separating you from the $4000 computer in terms of headshots.

Don't ya love the way the PC is leeching off Microsoft's Xbox 360; getting games late etc. (sorry, anti-PC flame there) ...although I think FPS would be better served on a PC...

Not sure what you mean.

oceanclub

jaykhunter wrote: »

I can't wrap my head around constantly upgrading PC hardware to keep up with modern gaming. If someone can direct me to a cheap (under 500 euros) PC that can play Resident Evil 5 flawlessly I'll concede PCs are worth it and probably go get one :pac::pac::pac:

Presumably when you say "flawlessly", you mean "at least as good as a console looks", in which case a cheap PC will do.

Don't ya love the way the PC is leeching off Microsoft's Xbox 360

A very ironic statement since it's Microsoft profits from PC software that they use to fund XBox (which has never made a profit for them).

P.

jaykhunter

Wow fast response! thanks Also a bit stand-offish but hey...

I suppose what I meant by "flawlessly" is that textures are all high-res and there's no slow down/screen tearing etc etc. Basically all of the tweaks in the options settings are most PC/graphics card/engine intensive? Can a cheap PC play Resi 5 (i'm choosing that game because it's relatively new and graphics intensive) by my 'flawless' criteria?

I do see that PC games look slightly better than console games (thanks to GT's console comparisons) but I imagine that these games are optimised for play on (eg) Xbox 360? I just don't have the resources or the will (if I did have the resources) to keep buying new hardware. Does that mean your PC from 4 years ago can play Resi 5 as well as a console? How much was your PC worth 4 years ago? (and how much is it now )

Which presents a major drawback when there are manufacturing flaws or corrupted firmware updates.

Manufacturing flaws definitely, don't need to bang on about the 360, corrupted firmware surely should be few and far between as it could be tested on a smaller scale before mass consumption.

Overheal wrote: »

As for comptetitive advantages, they plateau significantly when you reached a certain spec based on the game. If youre playing low res 10fps - yeah, youre gonna suck balls. once you hit the 720p range a smooth 30 frames theres not nearly as much separating you from the $4000 computer in terms of headshots..

And how much does a 720p range/30fps PC cost today?

oceanclub wrote: »

Presumably when you say "flawlessly", you mean "at least as good as a console looks", in which case a cheap PC will do.

I mean "plays as smooth/good-looking as" but a cheap PC? I call shenanigans. I don't believe you. Please prove me wrong by listing out a cheap PC with specs that play (say Resi 5) as smooth/good-looking as a console? How much does that cost? (i.e. is it comparable to a console's cost)

oceanclub wrote: »

A very ironic statement since it's Microsoft profits from PC software that they use to fund XBox (which has never made a profit for them).

I think it has irony but it's certainly not ironic! LOL! I'd say conversely coincidental! (There's a running gag with my friends about using the term 'ironic' spuriously)

BostonB

Overheal wrote: »

...Subscriptions play a huge part in the industry. You cant exclude their figures

I can if i don't have any to go on.

You just guessed the figures you came up with.

I can't see the online sales on the PC will change the simply fact that there are vastly more consoles than PCs. Sheer weight of numbers.

oceanclub

jaykhunter wrote: »

Wow fast response! thanks Also a bit stand-offish but hey...

I suppose what I meant by "flawlessly" is that textures are all high-res and there's no slow down/screen tearing etc etc. Basically all of the tweaks in the options settings are most PC/graphics card/engine intensive? Can a cheap PC play Resi 5 (i'm choosing that game because it's relatively new and graphics intensive) by my 'flawless' criteria?

But you're not comparing like with like. You want a PC that costs the same as a console, but can play the latest game at far higher resolutions/FPS than a console. Often, the highest resolution textures on PC are higher than those on console, and often, the console is locked at only 30 frames per second ("Wolfenstein" on the XBox, for example, and even _then_ it stutters). You pay for what you get.

Does that mean your PC from 4 years ago can play Resi 5 as well as a console? How much was your PC worth 4 years ago? (and how much is it now )

Well, the PC I have now I put together about 2 years ago for, I think, €900. Haven't upgraded anything since, and it still plays the latest cross-platform releases such as Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Ages: Origins at maximum settings with a high FPS and no slowdown. Can't forsee needing to upgrade for a long time; since we're late in the current console lifecycle, cross-platform games aren't going to become much more graphically intence until the next generation of consoles are released.

Can you prove me wrong by listing out a cheap PC with specs that play (say Resi 5) as smooth/good-looking as a console?

First, you'll have to tell us what resolution/frames per second/anti-aliasing/anistrophic filtering is used on the XBox 360 version of RE5, otherwise it's pure guesswork.

P.

Ciaran500

jaykhunter wrote: »

I mean "plays as smooth/good-looking as" but a cheap PC? I call shenanigans. I don't believe you. Please prove me wrong by listing out a cheap PC with specs that play (say Resi 5) as smooth/good-looking as a console? How much does that cost? (i.e. is it comparable to a console's cost)

CBA doing a full build up but heres a graphics card that will do RE5 at 1280*1024 and 4xAA (higher res and probably more AA than the 360) for about €80. It could even do 1920*1200 with full AA and AF at a playable frame rate. Way above what the 360 (or PS3) manages. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-133-XF

Benchmark results: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,690413/Resident-Evil-5-Graphics-cards-benchmarks/Practice/

There would be absolutely no problem building the rest of the PC for €420.


EDIT: Heres a PC with a slightly better graphics cards for about €500 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-198-OK&groupid=43&catid=1444&subcat=