5 Reasons you still need to be a PC gamer


Recommended Posts

I was a PC gamer from 1998-2010. I switched to console (PS3) a few weeks back for a few reasons:

DRM - because I used to switch to and from Window/Linux a lot and lot of my games locked me out due to too many installs. Funnily enough I'd only switch back to Windows because of games!

Playing on a Sofa with wireless controller - This is luxury, not huddled over a keyboard/mouse.

Media Servers - Again I can control my PC media library from the couch.

Linux - Not needing to play games on the PC any more has finally freed me from Windows.

Another bonus for me was that I can't mod/cheat the hell out of games any more. If I got a bit bored of a PC game I'd mod/godmode through it just to see the end, I'm having to put more effort into PS3 games and I'm actually getting more enjoyment from it.

Yes but I don't have £300 to keep my PC up to date, thats the problem with PC gaming. Atleast with a console I know that the games wont change much until a new console comes out. Oh and playing PC games 1280x1024 (if the game isn't too taxing, I sometimes have to drop the resolutions) on a 19" monitor compared to 1080p on a 37" TV......I'll pick the TV :p

You obviously didnt get his point. He was saying the "bleeding edge" was a bull**** reason. My old PC was around his and i spent 200 more to keep it going for another year. It would go 1600(resolution) pretty nicely too.

Playing 1080p from a PC is better then ANY console as PC natively supports 1080 on ALL games. All consoles do is upscale or etc. So idk what your point is there.

PC gaming will stay alive me because theres people like me and spookie and a few others(anaron, sethos, dirtylarry, etc) that will know what games go where. BF BC2? Guess what PC. That game is garbage on consoles compared to PC and yes ive played it on my 360 and PS3 and I still prefer PC for that game.

Also, HOPEFULLY if they keep there acts together, BF3 will be PC only and you console people there will miss out, and im totally happy with that :).

IF your smart and build a PC to your necessities you really dont spend much. Its cheaper then a console for all the stuff youll buy for the console and does A LOT more then a console.

@08993: Your case is different, I would get annoyed of the DRM too but for me im tri booting 7/ubuntu/backtrack and so far my DRM hasnt broken for any of my RETAIL games. Also most of my steam games keep there own DRM through steam so those NEVER break.

Thats one thing I love about steam, doesnt matter what you do on your computer, as long as you are in steam your DRM is fresh doesnt have to reactivate.

Playing 1080p from a PC is better then ANY console as PC natively supports 1080 on ALL games. All consoles do is upscale.

The PS3 and 360 do have some native 1080p titles (not upscaled), though rare.

BF3 will be PC only and you console people there will miss out, and im totally happy with that

I would rather PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 gamers get BF3 so everyone can enjoy the title. To me it's all about gamers as a group of people that enjoy playing games. I think everyone would be happier if everyone had more opportunities than less.

I was a PC gamer from 1998-2010. I switched to console (PS3) a few weeks back for a few reasons:

DRM - because I used to switch to and from Window/Linux a lot and lot of my games locked me out due to too many installs. Funnily enough I'd only switch back to Windows because of games!

Playing on a Sofa with wireless controller - This is luxury, not huddled over a keyboard/mouse.

Media Servers - Again I can control my PC media library from the couch.

Linux - Not needing to play games on the PC any more has finally freed me from Windows.

Another bonus for me was that I can't mod/cheat the hell out of games any more. If I got a bit bored of a PC game I'd mod/godmode through it just to see the end, I'm having to put more effort into PS3 games and I'm actually getting more enjoyment from it.

You bring up some good points but the last one is more about self-control. On the PC platform, the ability to mod or edit the game to your liking is a perk.

#5 contradicts #1 (in the grand scheme of cost), #3 can be done on consoles, and #2 is subjective and irrelevant (given that console gamers are generally never pitted against pc gamers). Not a very solid list.

-Spenser

One could say that you can afford to be on the bleeding edge because the games are $10 cheaper.

5 doesn't contradict number 1. You don't necessarily need a high cost system to play bleeding edge games.

3 can't be done on a console - since when could you play Space Quest on a 360? Heck, can you play Halo 1 on a 360 after April?

2 - debatable. I hear a lot of people say "Wish I had a KB/Mouse on a console". Personal preference really.

So yeah, I agree. PC Gaming's not going away. And after seeing pricing of PC games vs Console games - i'm happy to be a PC gamer.

Yes 5 does contradict 1. A "low cost" PC is still significantly more expensive than consoles and you still have to update it much more frequently.

3 can be done. Heard of Xbox Live Arcade and the Playstation Network? And yes, Xbox games can still be played on Xbox 360 - you just can't go online with them, which isn't an issue in Halo 1 anyways as it never had Xbox Live to begin with.

-Spenser

5 doesn't contradict number 1. You don't necessarily need a high cost system to play bleeding edge games.

3 can't be done on a console - since when could you play Space Quest on a 360? Heck, can you play Halo 1 on a 360 after April?

2 - debatable. I hear a lot of people say "Wish I had a KB/Mouse on a console". Personal preference really.

So yeah, I agree. PC Gaming's not going away. And after seeing pricing of PC games vs Console games - i'm happy to be a PC gamer.

Yes! (for the bolded part)

Im sorry but I cant stand controls of a computer game. I have to have a controller, preferably a PS type.

Ok. You take your controller. I will take my keyboard and mouse. 1vs1 in every real (real as in Quake / Unreal Tournament / Counter Strike) first person shooter game. No auto aim, no auto fire, no auto whatever. If you kill once, you win, and consoles are better. :)

Ok. You take your controller. I will take my keyboard and mouse. 1vs1 in every real (real as in Quake / Unreal Tournament / Counter Strike) first person shooter game. No auto aim, no auto fire, no auto whatever. If you kill once, you win, and consoles are better. :)

WTF is a "real FPS"? :laugh:

The PS3 and 360 do have some native 1080p titles (not upscaled), though rare.

I would rather PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 gamers get BF3 so everyone can enjoy the title. To me it's all about gamers as a group of people that enjoy playing games. I think everyone would be happier if everyone had more opportunities than less.

I believe they should keep BF "exclusive" to PC. BF on the xbox 360 and ps2 sucked. Nothing like 1942 or 2.

Also, like i said ALL games on PC are native 1080. Better then some like consoles, and i mean all consoles. But I was refering to his post about resolution and pointing out PC > consoles in 1080p.

WTF is a "real FPS"? :laugh:

IMO,

- No auto-aim or any partial implementation of thereof

- No Giant-Cursor

- No hit-everything within the giant cursor no matter what

- The necessity of dynamic switching between precision aiming (per pixel cursor movement) and fast twich shooting (the enemy behind you), in other words a controller which allows precision while the speed of the cursor shouldn't be static or limited in range.*

- A game which rewards those that have fast response time and skill.

- Main strategy should be: if it moves kill it.

I just remembered, in CS:S, in a surf map, where both sides spawn with bulletproof glass between them, I jumped off, did a 180 turn (to look at the other side) and got a scope-less headshot with a scout.

#2 is subjective and irrelevant (given that console gamers are generally never pitted against pc gamers).

It might be subjective, but it's not irrelevant. Many kinds of games are a better experience with a mouse + keyboard control scheme than with console controls. The right controller for the right job.

Never mind that you can buy console style controllers for the PC. Natal will even be available for PCs. Or what if you want simulator controls like a steering wheel, or an entire airplane cockpit? If money is no object, you can even play RTSes or D&D on the MS Surface.

SX02_HRT_Simulator_with_Pro_Series_Sequential_Shift.JPG

Consoles are cheap, dumbed-down PCs, a console cannot compete against a PC for quality. Ease of use maybe, but not quality. If you say people can play whatever they want, sure, except that console gaming is screwing over PC games. All we get is dumbed-down games because publishers want to make everything cross-platform to maximize profits.

I really don't have anything good to say about consoles, except for maybe the Wii and portable consoles because they are unique platforms. The PS3 and Xbox are a cancer of the gaming industry because they're nothing but dumbed-down PCs with monkey-oriented controllers.

A PC can do almost everything a console can do.

Do you like using a controller? Just hook it up to a PC.

Do you like playing on a couch in front of a TV? Hook up your PC to your TV and grab your controller.

And you don't need a top of the line PC to play the latest games. If you just set your resolution to 1280x720, the equivalent of what's output by consoles, you can get by with a 2-3 year old video card with graphics equivalent to consoles.

With Games for Windows Live, PC gamers now even have a gamertag + achievements.

IMO the only advantage consoles have are console-exclusive titles. Damn you Microsoft, why can't you just release Halo 3 + ODST + Reach on PC. :angry:

This is all about gaming right!

Excellent system exclusive games make excellent use of whatever control schemes and graphics capabilities the systems they are on have, and different people will be comfortable paying different prices for games than others. So really all your points are useless, it all depends on the person and what game they are playing.

For me a still need to be a PC gamer because I couldn't handle missing out on the PC exclusive first person shooters and strategy games, plus I personally prefer the keyboard mouse combo for many genres and like to push my games at a super high rez with AA and AF. Still for other people these points could mean little to nothing. I own a Wii for all my casual, first party and local multiplayer games and have just as much fun on it as on my computer.

I think the only definite plus for PC gaming that no one can argue is that the capabilities of the gfx are technically much much higher.

My two cents.

A PC can do almost everything a console can do.

Do you like using a controller? Just hook it up to a PC.

Do you like playing on a couch in front of a TV? Hook up your PC to your TV and grab your controller.

And you don't need a top of the line PC to play the latest games. If you just set your resolution to 1280x720, the equivalent of what's output by consoles, you can get by with a 2-3 year old video card with graphics equivalent to consoles.

With Games for Windows Live, PC gamers now even have a gamertag + achievements.

IMO the only advantage consoles have are console-exclusive titles. Damn you Microsoft, why can't you just release Halo 3 + ODST + Reach on PC. :angry:

Well, a PC can do everything a Console can do, not almost everything, but everything. Well maybe except for that Wii crap, but who the hell plays that anyway ? :)

I'm pretty sure you can hook up a keyboard/mouse to consoles these days.. maybe I'm wrong, no one of checking it out for me.. gave my old PS2 away to my nephew.

You also don't need to purchase a new (newer) Xbox360/PS3, they last for a long time, my PS2 that I mentioned before is now 5 years old and it still works and the games created for PS2 work fine.

Overall I'm a PC guy, I can't stand using the console, even games that I love playing on the PC..

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!