12 Ways Consoles Are Hurting PC Gaming

[Emn1ty]

The only thing on this list I completely agree with is the modding community. Developers have, since Halo 2, begun to frown upon modification of their games. Very few recent games allow for heavy modding (Left 4 Dead, Oblivion, Unreal Tournament... can't really think of many others...). Still the thing I hate the most about the console vs. pc argument is the hardware portion. Never does anyone accurately compare the two. For some reason PC games think that just because their GPU was made two years later and cost 20% more than the console itself did means their hardware is more advanced. It isn't so simple, especially when a large percentage of that power is lost due to the inability to properly optimize on PC hardware (see Crysis for a good example of that). The fact is that consoles can still output similarly graphically intensive games at steady framerates (even if at just sub-HD resolutions). The harware argument isn't really valid, seeing as even with a 1-2 year hardware headstart they can still keep up three or four years after their release when four or five hardware cycles have occured.

[Subject Delta]

The only thing on this list I completely agree with is the modding community. Developers have, since Halo 2, begun to frown upon modification of their games. Very few recent games allow for heavy modding (Left 4 Dead, Oblivion, Unreal Tournament... can't really think of many others...). Still the thing I hate the most about the console vs. pc argument is the hardware portion. Never does anyone accurately compare the two. For some reason PC games think that just because their GPU was made two years later and cost 20% more than the console itself did means their hardware is more advanced. It isn't so simple, especially when a large percentage of that power is lost due to the inability to properly optimize on PC hardware (see Crysis for a good example of that). The fact is that consoles can still output similarly graphically intensive games at steady framerates (even if at just sub-HD resolutions). The harware argument isn't really valid, seeing as even with a 1-2 year hardware headstart they can still keep up three or four years after their release when four or five hardware cycles have occured.

The points you are missing are:

Firstly, top end graphics cards VASTLY outpower any console graphics cards. Hardware manufacturers aren't to blame for developers that can't optimise their code properly

Secondly: Consoles use a lot of visual tricks to do what they do. If you tried running Crysis on any of the current gen consoles, at 1080p, with the same visual quality, and texture resolution that you get on the PC version and it would totally bring a console to it's knees. Hardcore gamers WILL be able to tell the difference. Hell, I showed a friend of mine who was a hardcore gamer how CoD: Black Ops looked on the PC, and even he remarked at how much higher the graphical quality is.

[Emn1ty]

The points you are missing are:

Firstly, top end graphics cards VASTLY outpower any console graphics cards. Hardware manufacturers aren't to blame for developers that can't optimise their code properly

Save for the fact you can't optimize for multiple configurations like you can one configuration. Which is why old hardware still competes with new hardware on a console vs. pc basis for several years.

Secondly: Consoles use a lot of visual tricks to do what they do. If you tried running Crysis on any of the current gen consoles, at 1080p, with the same visual quality, and texture resolution that you get on the PC version and it would totally bring a console to it's knees. Hardcore gamers WILL be able to tell the difference. Hell, I showed a friend of mine who was a hardcore gamer how CoD: Black Ops looked on the PC, and even he remarked at how much higher the graphical quality is.

Tricks are tricks. As long as the game performs and looks good I don't care what "tricks" they use. My question is why run it at 1080p? What is so much infinitely better about 1080p? If it looks good at 720p (or 640p like many games) then it doesn't matter. Bigger =/= better. You would have to double your investment in a console to achieve that anyways, maybe triple or quadruple ($12-$1300 vs. $400-$600). But this is beside the point, because the amount of quality someone wants in their game is relative to them and most people would rather settle for a $400 console that runs the game beautifully and will forever run every game they buy rather than have to constantly worry about whether or not their PC is going to play X game at Y quality or if they'll need to shell out another $150-$500 to replace some parts or possibly even the motherboard. It is two different kinds of gaming practices.

[nub]

Honestly, I would rather pay $365 for the console and game one time than spending that every few months every year just to keep a PC up-to-date.

I'm using a 8800gt (released in 07) and I can play games just fine (not at highest settings through). Console hardware puts a cap on pc gamer hardware. If you're playing the same games on the console and the pc, why would the pc need an upgrade, but not the console?

[anarkhy]

Also most people are turning to notebooks, netbooks... which are less powerfull than desktops.

[Guest xiphi]

I disagree with the one about GFWL. Though, I'm probably the only one. I really don't see what's so bad about it. Considering it's made it easier for games to stay updated.

That said, it's a damn shame that so many games are left unsupported after release or lose features. Sonic and Sega All-stars Racing lost online and DLC support, Transformers: WFC was forgotten about after it was released, etc...

While PC gaming has greatly improved during the last 10 years, it still has a long way to go.

[HawkMan]

I am sorry, but you seem to be limiting yourself to A system which is used to take up space and give you mediocre yet closed options to media

that 1200 gives you so much more than a thing to play games, please do not confuse them

also, I would rather see the consoles die before I give up PC gaming .... I cannot downgrade myself to a few pixels on a tv when I can have a glorious 3 x24 inch sub 600$ monitors in its glory running on a video card that costs as much as a PS3 being able to watch and play porn/games and a movie without any headaches ..

Moreover, for the love of a horny monkey, console gaming is a joke, a money grabber becaue

1. buy the console ($400) then obviously you have to invest (if not already done so) in a TV .... ($1000) and LOL (i hate that acronym) you have a whooping 1400 system used for what?! games?! and movies?! really? are you that insane?! ....

Well he could buy a console for 250 that will last him years and play games that graphically look almost the same as on PC (crysis 2 had very little differece) is easier to play, no need to mess with drivers or all that, awesome multiplayer options instead of server hunting. and he can buy a cheap laptop to do the computer stuff, and still come out below what a gaming rig would cost.

[ozgeek]

IMO, piracy has something to do with the declining support of PC gaming. On PC iti s extremely easy to pirate games. On consoles, you'd have to hack the consoles and with the risks of being banned from online services whereas you are just banned from a game depending on the cheating mechanism used, and not banning you from your whole computer.

I'm a heavy PC gamer (more like Steam gamer) and I can notice the increase of Xbox characteristics in some games on PC (GFWL, xbox360 controller, etc). Because consoles are here to stay, developers are simply adapting to develop some or all platforms. You can't expect developers to make 2 or 3 versions of games all the time. That costs money. Lots of money. I guess game companies are losing more on PC because of piracy than on console.

[The Gunslinger]

lets see....

Drop $300 for a PS3 and $65 for Crysis 2?

Build up a system that will range $1200 and pray it runs at medium settings with decent framerates....

just an example

And what are you going to view the game on? Seems you missed out a big cost there.

[Emn1ty]

And what are you going to view the game on? Seems you missed out a big cost there.

Seeing as a 32" TV is only around a couple hundred bucks and an HD screen at 22-24" is also a couple hundred bucks I don't see how there is a difference. The only REAL difference is a TV can be used for far more than a monitor can.

[The Laughing Man]

I love how games are made on the PC for consoles and then back ported to the PC so they can run. Make the damn game for the PC first...... Most games release on PC and Console at the same time, so factoring in sales wouldn't be valid.

Oh and I forgot to add , and this one really angers me, NO DEMO FOR THE PC.

Its BS full game comes out demo doesn't follow, or if we are lucky we get a demo 4 months after the game is released. Games used to get demos way before the full game came out. Not anymore. You never can try a game before you buy it. You have to suck it up and pay for it and then hate it later.

[Amarok]

I love my PS3, and my PC as well. They're a world apart though in terms of games and overall usefulness. My PS3 (and aside from the Blu Ray functionality, an Xbox would be the same thing) is primarily a gaming device that sometimes gets used to watch movies. I use my PC for work stuff, for school stuff, for staying informed, for gaming, music, movies, reading, coding, designing and keeping in contact with friends and family.

Console games look good, I will admit, so long as you don't look at a side by side of the same game on PC. You can look at screenshots and say the difference is minor, but when you see both games in motion side-by-side it becomes pretty obvious that the PC versions are better looking. I shouldn't even have to mentioned better controls. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to completely dog the consoles, two of my favorite games at the moment are console exclusives. If a game is out for both PC and consoles I'll always get the PC version. I mean if I'm going to pay $60 for something why not pay $60 for the version that's almost always better?

I wouldn't say consoles are hurting PC gaming, I think gaming is just becoming more mainstream and consoles are a cheaper way to get into gaming. It's a win for gamers.

[Fourjays Veteran]

1 way PC Gaming is Hurting Itself - Technical issues.

As I said in another thread recently, I have games almost 10 years old that worked perfectly, yet every time I buy a PC game these days I feel like I am taking a gamble (especially when you factor in DRM like Steam where you can't return it if it will not work and the developer will not fix it). Throughout the last 10 years I've seen games get buggier and buggier, to the point where a game not running on release day is somewhat normal, for me and many others. I can't really blame the developers though. PCs are getting more complicated, the games are getting more complicated and the release schedules are getting shorter.

Apart from technical problems, I've also found that PC games have become less varied... everything seems to be an FPS or RTS. One thing that I've really been impressed with since getting my console is the game variety, to the point where I haven't really touched an FPS or RTS since. I think this is probably linked to the technical issues above though - the developer spends their time focusing on developing an interesting game that works the same for everyone on 1-2 consoles, rather than trying to get generic shooter #122 to run smoothly on 50% of the possible PC configurations. Look at PC-only games like Total War, where little of the core game has changed since it started, but each new release still comes out half-finished.

I know PC gamers like to bring up graphics (it seems to be the only real argument), but I play a game to play the game. I'll happily sacrifice a little graphics for a game that not only actually runs, but then plays well too. Not to mention that it is a rather expensive hobby to run everything at max - almost every new game release ends up requiring a monster graphics card upgrade, at ?500 a go. Yea, you use your computer for other things too. I use mine heavily all day for web development, but I don't need a graphics card that costs as much as a whole computer to run Photoshop.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Developers can remedy these issues for the most part, it's got nothing to do with consoles changing/console manufacturers changing.

Very easy to just blame consoles for your PC troubles, when the real issue is not that simple.

[DukeEsquire]

lets see....

Drop $300 for a PS3 and $65 for Crysis 2?

Build up a system that will range $1200 and pray it runs at medium settings with decent framerates....

just an example

:blink:

I just BOUGHT a new PC for $800 shipped and it can run Crysis 2 on high settings with a good framerate. Crysis 2 is probably less demanding on a system than Crysis 1...

For all the whiners about how expensive PCs are, let's not forget that once you have a good setup, you just need to upgrade some pieces every once in a while.

[Raa]

PC Gaming for me. Hands down winner.

Gaming was brought in by the PC, and it should remain strong on the PC. Not made for consoles and backported to PCs as an afterthought!

[Subject Delta]

Tricks are tricks. As long as the game performs and looks good I don't care what "tricks" they use. My question is why run it at 1080p? What is so much infinitely better about 1080p? If it looks good at 720p (or 640p like many games) then it doesn't matter. Bigger =/= better. You would have to double your investment in a console to achieve that anyways, maybe triple or quadruple ($12-$1300 vs. $400-$600). But this is beside the point, because the amount of quality someone wants in their game is relative to them and most people would rather settle for a $400 console that runs the game beautifully and will forever run every game they buy rather than have to constantly worry about whether or not their PC is going to play X game at Y quality or if they'll need to shell out another $150-$500 to replace some parts or possibly even the motherboard. It is two different kinds of gaming practices.

If you don't understand why games look better at high resolution, you aren't even worth debating with. Heck, why don't we just shelve all progress and run games at 320x240 like they used to be on the Nintendo 64 :laugh:

[cork1958]

I would rather play on a console any day. PC gaming is not nearly as fun, to me anyway.

+ not just 1, but A WHOLE LOT!!

Total waste of a computer anyway, IMO.

[Fourjays Veteran]

PC Gaming for me. Hands down winner.

Gaming was brought in by the PC, and it should remain strong on the PC. Not made for consoles and backported to PCs as an afterthought!

By that logic you should be playing dominos or monopoly or a games arcade or something as that is where games started. Gaming evolves. That it "started" on the PC bears no relevance on whether it should stay on it.

I don't expect the desktop PC to really exist at a consumer level in 10-20 years time. Read at the weekend that gaming is fast outstripping movies and music as the entertainment choice of adults and I doubt very much that is done at the PC (except for Farmville). Factor in services such as on-demand TV and I can easily envisage the console becoming the only box you need under the TV. PC will remain primarily for productivity, with mobiles/tablets for "consuming" data (and Farmville).

[StrikedOut]

The big thing I miss about ALL games is the end of game sequence. I remember having spent hours/days/weeks compleeting a tough as hell game and getting rewarded with a full screen sequence that made me feel that it was a reward for a momentus effort. Now you play a game for a few hours and get a a few screen stills and maybe a bit of text to end the story. Very dissapointing. Also bare in mind that these games came on a single CD, not multiple DVD's.

[thommcg]

The thing is;

With a console, the burden is on the developer to work within fixed limitations.

With a PC, the burden is on the owner to supply updated hardware / software to meet the developers whims.

Whether my Xbox 360 is 1yr old or 4yr old I needn't have the slightest concern about how well it'll run the latest games. Whether the PC version is superior in every way (*assuming* capable hardware that is!) isn't worth arguing about.

[gkl]

PC Gaming for me. Hands down winner.

Gaming was brought in by the PC, and it should remain strong on the PC. Not made for consoles and backported to PCs as an afterthought!

I don't know much about gaming history, but didn't video games basically start on consoles? IE, Pong, Atari 2600, NES and the likes? I might be horribly wrong though...

[Osiris]

No.1 reason for me would have to be dumbed down sequels....silly console gamers and your attention spans of a gnat.

[Fourjays Veteran]

I don't know much about gaming history, but didn't video games basically start on consoles? IE, Pong, Atari 2600, NES and the likes? I might be horribly wrong though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_video_game

The first video game console was in 1966. Although there were some video games prior to that they seem to be more experimental.

No.1 reason for me would have to be dumbed down sequels....silly console gamers and your attention spans of a gnat.

Just because I play on a console does not mean I want "dumbed down sequels". I'd actually take issue with the inclusion of it in the list. A developer's inability to make a good sequel is not the fault of the platform they made it for. Plenty of developers manage just fine.

[Vice]

Tricks are tricks. As long as the game performs and looks good I don't care what "tricks" they use. My question is why run it at 1080p? What is so much infinitely better about 1080p? If it looks good at 720p (or 640p like many games) then it doesn't matter. Bigger =/= better. You would have to double your investment in a console to achieve that anyways, maybe triple or quadruple ($12-$1300 vs. $400-$600). But this is beside the point, because the amount of quality someone wants in their game is relative to them and most people would rather settle for a $400 console that runs the game beautifully and will forever run every game they buy rather than have to constantly worry about whether or not their PC is going to play X game at Y quality or if they'll need to shell out another $150-$500 to replace some parts or possibly even the motherboard. It is two different kinds of gaming practices.

I play my games at an XHD resolution (2560x1600) and games look fantastic. I mostly play Anno 1404, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead 2 and Bad Company 2.

In all those games I play at maximum settings with 16 x AF and 32 x AA and all those games run great. For all the cries about games not being optimised that is just a crock because you can buy a ?100 Graphics Card today and run those games at highest settings. Maybe not with high AA and AF (2x AA 4x AF something like that) but at full native resolution of your display and with all the in-game settings set to max. And they look fantastic.

And let us not forget that with the PC you can now do surround gaming with 3, 5 or 6 displays of any size (including 6 x 2560x1600 displays) and you can also do 3D gaming _regardless_ of if the game developer has built it in to the game or not (GPU vendors have done the work so that it "just works") and heck you can even do surround gaming and 3D at once using multiple displays.

Now I know what you are going to say, all that stuff is expensive. And it is expensive I grant you that but the point of the PC is it doesn't have to start off that way. You can buy a PC for ?250 (Tower only) and play the latest games or you can spend ?10,000 and play the latest games. You have the option to pick and choose your own experience. And since everyone in this day and age owns a computer anyway that extra expense to make it gaming ready (just buying a graphics card) becomes even cheaper because you aren't paying for a case or a power supply or a CPU as you were already going to own those regardless.

If people said Bigger isn't Better we wouldn't be making the move to HD resolutions in the first place. High Fidelity visuals, very dense pixels make the image quality better. The more pixels you have the more detail you can see. That is why Phone Displays are going up in resolution (iPhone Retina Display) it is why Computer displays are going up in resolution (27" iMac with 2560x1440 display) it is why our operating systems are gaining resolution independence (Mac OS X Lion, Windows 7) and it is why TV's now ship with 1080p displays as standard.