Why I no longer play games on PC. A discussion?

[thilanliyan]

I just haven't had the time to play many games. I used to play and finish games on a regular basis but now it takes me a couple of weeks to finish any game because I rarely have the time to sit there for hours just playing. I'm still only like half way to finishing Mass Effect 2 lol.

 

[Pia]

Way, way too OCD.

My gaming PC is equipped with what were midrange parts two years ago when I bought the machine (8800gts, e7200). Everything I want to play runs fine at decently high settings and typically in my native 1920x1200. No need to upgrade. No need to tweak anything. As zerocool84 pointed out, even a weak PC crushes a console in performance so before saying anything about PCs being expensive you need to be thinking about the equivalent of a console - a PC that can run games smoothly at 1280x720 at low settings. That is seriously cheap, a four year old PC can probably do it in most cases. Not to mention a 360, requisite accessories and a continuous subscription to Live will, over the console's lifetime (let's say four years), cost pretty much the same as a decent gaming PC.

I play on consoles too but just because of the exclusives. With multiplatform games where one of the platforms is PC, either the PC version is superior or equal in graphics and control, or the quality of work is terrible and I leave the whole title be on principle. Same with DRM. It's not hard to dodge basically all those quality problems. Just wait and look at the first round of non-bribed reviews at least before buying. There are too many good games around for me to bother with one the devs deliberately shat on.

 

[JD50]

I'm sure that ben skywalker guy will show up any minute saying that you need a $1500 cpu for gaming.

 

[Thraxen]

I've still got both a gaming-capable PC and consoles, but find that more of my gaming time goes to consoles as of late, mainly because I find it more relaxing to play from the comfort of my sofa than sitting in front my desk. Although admittedly, I found the PC version of Dragon Age: Origins to be a superior playing experience to the console (360) version.

Pretty much ditto for me. I've got a quad core PC, blah, blah... and can play basically any current PC game at at least mid-high settings, but simply choose consoles more often than not. One, I prefer gaming on main entertainment center rather than my office (where my PCs are located) and, two, most of my friends game on consoles.

However, I am eagerly awaiting Diablo III. As soon as Blizzard quits dicking around with Cataclysm and SC2 and gets Diablo III out I'm all over it. I'll probably ride my current PC until just before that launches and then upgrade. Yeah, I likely won't need to considering it's Blizzard game, but it's a good enough excuse to upgrade 🙂 Diablo II owned me for several years and expect DIII with do the same.

 

[Fox5]

Heh, the best integrated graphics will just about handle the settings consoles run games at, and a dual core will handle most games too.
A low end graphics card easily beats a console's settings, but there's a big difference between playing on a monitor and on a TV.

 

[Terzo]

And I love it when these people come in and think they are ELITE PC gamers with these shit boxes they build. I don't consider gaming on a budget PC really PC gaming. It's just getting by, and makes for a crappy PC gaming experience, IMO. If you are going to game on a PC, it better be all maxed all the time at 1920x1200 minimum. Otherwise it's not worth it. Now if you have a triple 30" (2560x1600) Eyefinity setup playing Modern Warfare 2 close to max settings, NOW we're talking! Other than that, not impressed with what PC gaming has to offer now.

Why wouldn't you consider playing games on a computer pc gaming? Am I not a "console gamer" because I play my games on a tiny 20" 1680x1050 monitor?
It doesn't really matter what settings or hardware a gamer plays with as long as they are satisfied with the experience. I consider not playing TF2 a more crappy experience than playing TF2 on low settings. Likewise I consider playing Valkyria Chronicles on a 20" a better experience than not playing it because I don't have a huge 1080 tv to play it on.

 

[WildW]

In my opinion there isn't really as much difference between PC and console gaming as people think. The main differences are imposed by the console manufacturers and game developers - it isn't about the capability of the machines any more.

For instance, there is no technical reason why a PC can't behave like a console. You can hook up to a big TV, plug in a 360 controller, sit in your comfy chair, and play the PC version of various console games. They could implement a Live style online service for PC with headsets and junk if they wanted. Heck, you could make PC games run from the disc without an install process if it seemed desirable enough - it would just be a bit slow. I don't see that there's anything a console can technically do that a PC can't, but the games and so on just aren't made and sold that way. DRM appears because the PC isn't a locked down system in the way the consoles are.

By the same token, some of the advantages of PC gaming could easily be implemented on the consoles. There's zero reason why the XBox 360 can't support USB mouse+keyboard in games - they just choose not to because they think everyone sits in a big comfy chair. My 360 is hooked up to my PC monitor, I like it that way.

The OP's view on PC gaming seems to be that there's too much freedom to tweak. The opposite tends to be my view of consoles - that there's not enough ability to do things how I want. Maybe not tweaking graphics settings, but the lack of mouse and the aging hardware. The 360 is getting old now.

I seriously think there's room in the market for some kind of middle ground between consoles and PC. Say, a new XBox 360 with higher clocked CPU, faster GPU that would run the same games, just at a higher resolution and/or more smoothly. Those tweaks could be set automatically instead of letting the user fiddle with them. Every couple of years a newer faster version of the console would appear, making all your existing games run faster without having to think about it. On the back of the game box you'd have "Requires XBox 2010 or greater. XBox 2012 recommended." New games could still run on older machines, just with the reduced resolution and detail - this is basically what we have now, just that the faster XBox doesn't exist.

I think it would be a better way forward than the complete all-change we get with new consoles now. The real benefit of PC gaming is constantly improving COMPATIBLE hardware - it's the fact that it's the bleeding edge of technology that keeps people interested. The XBox 360 is what, 5 years old? If it had been given a refresh or two with faster hardware, and you could plug in a mouse, I don't think there would be a console vs PC gaming argument. Our PCs would all just be laptops for Facebook by now.

 

[meltdown75]

i don't think i've played a game on my PC since purchasing my PS3... i will eventually, probably this coming winter... but it will be my old games like Half Life 2 and Battlefield 1942... there's still a ton of games I have to backtrack and finish. Pretty much everything pre-2007 :awe:

 

[xSauronx]

Odd. The absolute oldest/weakest machine I have running out of six is a E8400 with a 280GTX in it and it still obliterates everything on the market. Thats only a $200 graphics card..

I can't quite follow your complaint.

ive got phenom 2 x4 810 and had a gtx 275 and was happy with dragon age and world at war @ 1080p...

i sold the 275 though and got a ps3. im absolutely fed up with drm issues on my pc...i paid for my games and i still have issues and run into hassles that absolutely should not be there.

and i dont pc game like i used to and want to be able to play with friends on the ps3 sometimes....and i know several people with a ps3 who dont have a single complaint about it. so i figured...to hell with it, ill convert.

itll take me time to adjust to FPS games and get decent at them, but...oh well.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

This is new.

Here's a tip:

No one cares why "people" no longer play games on a PC. "People" still playing games on a PC are way more interesting.

Also, guess what? The fact that publishers are starting to stagger console and PC game releases so that the PC version comes out weeks or sometimes months later would indicate to me that, while maybe "people" aren't buying PC games, "people" are still playing PC games, enough of them to warrant publishers spending millions on trying to prevent piracy of said PC games in which "people" would just download the PC version of the game instead of buying the console version.

Also, there are quite a few people playing MMOs, which are on PCs.

So yeah, people are still playing PC games, contrary to popular belief.

 

[smackababy]

This is new.

Here's a tip:

No one cares why "people" no longer play games on a PC. "People" still playing games on a PC are way more interesting.

Also, guess what? The fact that publishers are starting to stagger console and PC game releases so that the PC version comes out weeks or sometimes months later would indicate to me that, while maybe "people" aren't buying PC games, "people" are still playing PC games, enough of them to warrant publishers spending millions on trying to prevent piracy of said PC games in which "people" would just download the PC version of the game instead of buying the console version.

Also, there are quite a few people playing MMOs, which are on PCs.

So yeah, people are still playing PC games, contrary to popular belief.

I call BS. Nobody has purchased a PC game since the internet became popular. The only people who play PC games are pirates. Didn't you know the sky was falling?

 

[VashHT]

I generally play single player games on console and MP games on my PC. I still get annoyed by Live at times, luckily all of my friends still game on their PC so I don't have to deal with it. I've never really understood the resentment that some console and PC gamers have for each other, to me it's mostly about where my friends are playing and what games are on what platform.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Who wants a gaming platform where you keep getting instant messages in the background or has to devote a lot resources to keep the OS running?

 

[mingsoup]

I seriously think there's room in the market for some kind of middle ground between consoles and PC. Say, a new XBox 360 with higher clocked CPU, faster GPU that would run the same games, just at a higher resolution and/or more smoothly. Those tweaks could be set automatically instead of letting the user fiddle with them. Every couple of years a newer faster version of the console would appear, making all your existing games run faster without having to think about it. On the back of the game box you'd have "Requires XBox 2010 or greater. XBox 2012 recommended." New games could still run on older machines, just with the reduced resolution and detail - this is basically what we have now, just that the faster XBox doesn't exist.

I am going to have to disagree with you there, and pray the big three never implement this. The simplicity of consoles is one of the major draws for me. It just works. The multiple SKU's
would break this. We've seen this before with the numerous SKU stuff in the past, which I believe that many just did away with, because it was too complicated for the consumer. A new sized process (ie 45nm) is OCD inducing enough, without actual spec changes. OH but the 2010SKU, if only I had 300$.

As for Xbox Live, I have never paid for it. I was brought up on free PC multi player gaming. Call me cheap, but after ponying up 60$ (Way too much money) I do not want to hand anything else over. I'll eventually buy a PS3, to play multi player one day. Xbox Live is a rip off, in my own opinion. I don't care if they have to maintain User experience, servers, etc, etc. It was done before for free on the PC. Hopefully, one day multi player gaming will be free again.

 

[Fox5]

Who wants a gaming platform where you keep getting instant messages in the background or has to devote a lot resources to keep the OS running?

Are you talking about the consoles? They can receive messages in the background and have a rather fancy OS (and full featured at the kernel level) running.

Who wants a dedicated device with inferior hardware?

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Yeah but that OS is using my <10&#37; of the resources.

Inferior hardware? It's a specially designed device that can be developed on to take full advantage of the resources.

 

[zerocool84]

Yeah but that OS is using my <10% of the resources.

Inferior hardware? It's a specially designed device that can be developed on to take full advantage of the resources.

Well of course it's inferior hardware. PC's always surpass console's within the first year or two.

 

[pontifex]

I have a Q9300 and a 4850 that play everything I need to just fine and I've had those for 2 or 3 years now.

you guys stating that playing with several year old hardware is fine are missing his point though. He wants the games to play at max settings perfectly. he doesn't want to settle for lower res or lower AA or whatever.

 

[Fox5]

Yeah but that OS is using my <10% of the resources.

Inferior hardware? It's a specially designed device that can be developed on to take full advantage of the resources.

Windows takes up less than 10% of resources. The cpu overhead of windows isn't that significant, and memory is cheap enough that memory usage isn't a problem.
It's not like the OS on a console is significantly different than the OS of a PC, either way you'll typically have a game in the foreground taking up 95% of resources, and unless a virus scanner or something pops up, everything else uses minimal resources.
A console has significantly less resources to work with anyway. 10% of my cpu and memory won't impact my games that much, 10% of a consoles cpu and memory is killer.

you guys stating that playing with several year old hardware is fine are missing his point though. He wants the games to play at max settings perfectly. he doesn't want to settle for lower res or lower AA or whatever.

Well, consoles play things with far inferior graphics fidelity, so is it just an OCD thing? Gotta max out every option that's available? If you really wanna max out AA all the way, there's very few games pc can handle decently with 16x SSAA or such.

 

[zerocool84]

you guys stating that playing with several year old hardware is fine are missing his point though. He wants the games to play at max settings perfectly. he doesn't want to settle for lower res or lower AA or whatever.

Yes but the hardware the guy has that you're responding to would give him much better visuals than a console can provide. Max settings are infinitely better than any console can provide.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I use my PC for these games:
- FPS
- (Western-style)RPGs
- RTS

I use my Console for these games:
- Beat'em up
- (Japanese-style)RPGs
- Third-person Shooters
- Fighting Games

I guess it's because I'm not too much of a PC-hardware nerd (yet) and never had cutting-edge stuff.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Assassin's Creed 2 came out at least 2 months earlier on the Xbox 360 compared to the PC version.

 

[WildW]

I am going to have to disagree with you there, and pray the big three never implement this. The simplicity of consoles is one of the major draws for me. It just works. The multiple SKU's
would break this. We've seen this before with the numerous SKU stuff in the past, which I believe that many just did away with, because it was too complicated for the consumer. A new sized process (ie 45nm) is OCD inducing enough, without actual spec changes. OH but the 2010SKU, if only I had 300$.

I don't see how its much different from a PS3 that also plays PS2 and PS1 games. People are aware enough that their PS2 can't play PS3 games. It can't be that hard to just implement new consoles on a compatible architecture each time - PCs have been doing it for long enough.

I guess the real point of my idea is that consoles are fine until they get old, and then you can't upgrade them. I have heap of old consoles under my bed way back to the NES, they all have different games, different controllers, different cartridges. My PC on the other hand still plays games going back 10 or 15 years, admittedly with a few compatibility issues for a few games. My PC game collection is a full CD wallet, rather than a box of 4 of each type of controller with new random plugs on each one.

These days just about everything I play is on PC, and if I have the choice with a multiformat title I get the PC version. The only reasons are faster and higher resolution graphics, and the ability to use mouse+keyboard. If a console did the same I'd be far better off with one, rather than struggling with driver updates, new weird and wonderful DRM schemes, and so on. I'd still have a PC to look at funny pictures of cats, but that's all it would need to do.

 

[JD50]

Yeah but that OS is using my <10% of the resources.

Inferior hardware? It's a specially designed device that can be developed on to take full advantage of the resources.

Exactly how much of your resources is your OS using?

 

[Hadsus]

Coke is better than Pepsi. Case closed.

And while were on the subject, Borderlands on PC kills Borderlands on console. Try to beat me with your thumbsticks (LOL). You haven't got a prayer.

That is all.......