The Cost - PC vs Console Gaming?

ScumLord

Retr0gamer wrote: »

PC gamings greatest contribution to our hobby:

Alt+Tabbing to gamefaqs.

Or using a second monitor/tv.

Azza wrote: »

Yes a PC will work but the UI/font size of most PC games is not really suited to the big screen as much as the consoles are.

But the UI and font size are the same on multi platform games. The majority of games on consoles operate mostly the same bar graphics options.

Azza

Thats sort of a catch 32, if its a game designed with PC in mind or they design a PC UI then it doesn't work as well on a big screen. Most multi-platform games are console focused which means the UI doesn't suit a PC monitor as much.

ScumLord

Azza wrote: »

Thats sort of a catch 32, if its a game designed with PC in mind or they design a PC UI then it doesn't work as well on a big screen. Most multi-platform games are console focused which means the UI doesn't suit a PC monitor as much.

I don't understand that, a PC monitor these days is basically the same as a TV as they both run at the same resolutions for the most part. My monitor is only slightly higher than standard 1080. It's not like the old days of CRT where you could pick any resolution sometimes up into the 2000s.

Varik

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't understand that, a PC monitor these days is basically the same as a TV as they both run at the same resolutions for the most part. My monitor is only slightly higher than standard 1080. It's not like the old days of CRT where you could pick any resolution sometimes up into the 2000s.

It's not just about resolution.

If i'm playing BF3 on a screen 3-4 m away it doesn't matter if it's PC or console, the UI of both is the amlost the same and works fine for that distance.

Now if i try to play an mmo that has me using quickbars they may not be that clear at a distance. That new steam big screen thing was more than controller support.

ShadowHearth

Varik wrote: »

It's not just about resolution.

If i'm playing BF3 on a screen 3-4 m away it doesn't matter if it's PC or console, the UI of both is the amlost the same and works fine for that distance.

Now if i try to play an mmo that has me using quickbars they may not be that clear at a distance. That new steam big screen thing was more than controller support.

Man the **** up and get your arse closer to the screen if you got problems seeing it.

now seriuosly. if something like console you would not even have ability to get mmorpgs of that level.
Almost all modern mmorpgs have scaling UI options. for example in EVE i can make buttons and menus as big as half of the screen. Same goes to guild wars 2.

ScumLord

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

So it's NEVER anything BUT a manufacturing fault?
Riiiiiiight... :rolleyes:

Yes because usually means never now.

Genghiz Cohen

When I play my PS3 I'm usually fairly close to the 42" TV. Like 5/6'.

Magill

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

When I play my PS3 I'm usually fairly close to the 42" TV. Like 5/6'.

Yeah, i don't understand how people can sit far back and play games tbh,i always sit within a few feet from my TV when playing on the PS3... especially MP games.

ShadowHearth

Magill wrote: »

Yeah, i don't understand how people can sit far back and play games tbh,i always sit within a few feet from my TV when playing on the PS3... especially MP games.

same, i hate sitting far away from TV when playing consoles.

ScumLord

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

When I play my PS3 I'm usually fairly close to the 42" TV. Like 5/6'.

Your TV is clearly too small, I have to sit at the other end of the room because my display is 98". :cool::pac:

Genghiz Cohen

ScumLord wrote: »

Your TV is clearly too small, I have to sit at the other end of the room because my display is 98". :cool::pac:

/coughtinycock

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

When I play my PS3 I'm usually fairly close to the 42" TV. Like 5/6'.

As it happens, 5.5' is about the optimum viewing distance for a 42" TV

ScumLord

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

/coughtinycock

It looks massive on my desktop wallpaper.

Cienciano

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Your SNES runs a lot slower & cooler, that's the whole point.
As electronics are made to run faster & hotter, they experience earlier failure rates.And Wii has lowest failure rate of all. Wait, where were we?


So it's NEVER anything BUT a manufacturing fault?
Riiiiiiight... :rolleyes:

The reasons xbox and ps3's failed was mostly bad design, which is a manufacturing fault. Rushing them out cos the competition is so fierce. That's just not a problem with a pc, especially if you're making one. If a part is known to give trouble, just don't buy it, millions of alternatives.

K.O.Kiki

Cienciano wrote: »

The reasons xbox and ps3's failed was mostly bad design, which is a manufacturing fault. Rushing them out cos the competition is so fierce. That's just not a problem with a pc, especially if you're making one. If a part is known to give trouble, just don't buy it, millions of alternatives.

I think you've contradicted yourself here.

Genghiz Cohen

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I think you've contradicted yourself here.

There was a batch of AMD HD7850's recently that were known to have faults, so people didn't buy them. There are plenty of alternatives.

I might be reading that post differently than you though.

Cienciano

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I think you've contradicted yourself here.

Listen, I think arguing with someone that thinks xbox and ps3 failure rates are normal, it's just peoples fault for putting them on the wrong type of shelf and every piece of technology will fail anyway is pretty pointless.
I never said pc's never fail, of course it's possible to get faulty components so that's not a contradiction.

I use a ps3, don't think I'd be bothered with a pc for gaming cos the ps3 is just easier to use. I can accept that a pc is far better for gaming and I'm just lazy! My fatboy 80gig PS3 had a hardware error last year. It was either send it back to sony at a price of €200, and probably get a reconditioned one, of buy a new slim one with a few games for €300. That would have been a lot cheaper problem on a PC. And never mind the encripted hard drive which you can't read, so game saves are gone.
Back years ago a decent pc costing a fortune and a console was fairly cheap, and the pc gamer playing at a desk in the corner of his bedroom while the console gamer had a couch are long gone.

saiint

have an xbox meself and a pc
rarely use pc for gaming though , i just dont like the pc for gaming , theirs more variety on consoles , fair enough graphics wise pc is better and memory wise pc is better but ive never had 1 fault with my xbox and its over 5 years old now and still going strong
im not a fanboy either just giving my opinion
although price wise pc is nice as it has mods, lots of sales, steam(probably best thing to happen to pc) but other then that i just dont find enough enjoyment out of a pc then a console

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

when you say there's more variety on console.... what do you mean exactly

Laviski

i think its fair to say if you only have <10 hours of game a week time then console is the better/cheaper option. if you have more time and able to upgrade your own pc then the pc option is better. Now if you need a pc other than gaming then obviously get a pc for both! if you have hdmi on your tv you can hook it up to your pc if you really want a bigger screen like you have on a console, and you can buy xbox controllers and the like for pc too.

ScumLord

Laviski wrote: »

i think its fair to say if you only have <10 hours of game a week time then console is the better/cheaper option.

I don't know how people come to these conclusions. I have feck all time for gaming, I don't see how I'd gain any time using a console.

danthefan

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know how people come to these conclusions. I have feck all time for gaming, I don't see how I'd gain any time using a console.

I would imagine it's because for the amount of time you get to play you'd get better value out of a console.

ScumLord

danthefan wrote: »

I would imagine it's because for the amount of time you get to play you'd get better value out of a console.

Like I already pointed out, a modern PC running windows 7 can boot in less than a minute. You can double click the icon for your game on the desktop and be playing the game in less than another minute. PCs now boot much faster and load games much faster than any console.

Burgo

danthefan wrote: »

I would imagine it's because for the amount of time you get to play you'd get better value out of a console.

What?

danthefan

ScumLord wrote: »

Like I already pointed out, a modern PC running windows 7 can boot in less than a minute. You can double click the icon for your game on the desktop and be playing the game in less than another minute. PCs now boot much faster and load games much faster than any console.

I have a gaming PC, cheers.

I don't think it's the minute saved here or there. If you've only 10 hours a week to play you're not going to get through a huge number of games, so paying a relatively large amount for a gaming PC mightn't be the best idea. I play about 90% of my games on the PC, I wouldn't be without it, but I can see the argument.

runawaybishop

danthefan wrote: »

I have a gaming PC, cheers.

I don't think it's the minute saved here or there. If you've only 10 hours a week to play you're not going to get through a huge number of games, so paying a relatively large amount for a gaming PC mightn't be the best idea. I play about 90% of my games on the PC, I wouldn't be without it, but I can see the argument.

what are you on about, 10 hours is loads.

danthefan

runawaybishop wrote: »

what are you on about, 10 hours is loads.

But if you get something like Skyrim it could take you 2 months to get through it.

runawaybishop

danthefan wrote: »

But if you get something like Skyrim it could take you 2 months to get through it.

So? 10 hours isn't a small amount of time.

Genghiz Cohen

runawaybishop wrote: »

what are you on about, 10 hours is loads.

danthefan

I was not aware this was such a touchy subject.