Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Gaming Platform of Choice - Console 390

An anonymous reader writes "Sick of PC snobs bragging about their "superior" gaming rigs? This opinion piece (a rebuttal lobbed at a previous article taking the opposite stance) presents the other side of the eternal debate over gaming preference — consoles vs. PCs. Get 10 good reasons why consoles are a better way to game with your hard-earned dollars. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaming Platform of Choice - Console

Comments Filter:
  • by jandrese ( 485 ) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:03AM (#16081019) Homepage Journal
    That article just wasted 2 whole minutes of my life. If you're brand new to the console/pc flamewar it'll give you the same arguments that everybody else has already heard a million times, but if not, don't bother.
  • by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:05AM (#16081027) Homepage
    Why should I buy a console when I can just use an emulator to play all these games on my PC?

    OK, now let's pretend for a moment you actually paid for all those games...
    • by Firehed ( 942385 )
      That, plus try actually emulating the latest games. Last I tried, even PS2 was very slow on pretty high end hardware, and I never had wonderful luck with PS1 either (though more due to my having no way to extract the BIOS data to actually run the program). Maybe the Xbox with it's more PC architecture runs better emulated; same for the gamecube though primarily due to it's lower hardware spec. And games designed for controllers (read: *not* FPS games) just never feel right on a keyboard and mouse.

      I won't
  • Reason #1 (Score:4, Funny)

    by ben there... ( 946946 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:05AM (#16081038) Journal
    Because I already bought one, so they must be better!
    • I guess in some small way I can understand a PC gamer's plight. I mean, if I shelled out enough scratch to bail out a small third-world nation I'd take every opportunity to justify my purchase...to everyone I meet. It would make me feel less insecure. And anyone who disagrees with me I'll call a peon, poor, or just plain ignorant. Ok, I'm being unjustly harsh here, but do you recognize the attitude? Every time a hardcore PC gamer blows his load about why PC gaming is the bee's knees you leave the forum feel
  • blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:09AM (#16081069) Journal
    For any two items with varying characteristics in multiple dimensions where neither is obviously worse or superior, the decision about which is "better" says more about the decision metric/weightings than the items being judged.

    It's basically just a definition debate; once you accept a definition of "better", you almost immediately have your answer about which is better.

    Defitition debates can be dry, but productive. Defitition debates where the participants don't realize they're in a definition debate, and argue as if their definition is some sort of universal, are boring and stupid.

    Console vs. PC arguments tend to fall in the latter category.

    I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it.
    • I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it.

      #define PC_V_GC_DEBATE "/dev/flamewar"

      There you go...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by foniksonik ( 573572 )
      Personally I find defecation debates over defitition debates. Not only are they not dry while still being productive... when they are carried out by monkeys in an enclosed space, they can be downright hilarious!

    • by jdcook ( 96434 )
      "I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it."

      Not to start a semantic argument [wikipedia.org] or anything but I think you should get your terms straight first.

      • by Jerf ( 17166 )
        Ah, thank you.

        I've tried on several occasions to find what I figure must be an existing term, but you'd be surprised how hard it is to find the name of an argument fallacy just from the description. (Logical fallacies are much better covered and you can usually just browse down one of the many lists, but I've had a harder time finding the purely argument fallacies that aren't really logical fallacies. In this case, it's not a logical fallacy because both sides may be using impeccable logic, within their own
  • Biggest reason: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nosredna ( 672587 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:11AM (#16081092)
    There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.
    • by Kjella ( 173770 )
      There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.

      Umm shouldn't that be the other way around? I've never had a problem with my work distracting me from games unless it's a "RED ALERT, DEFCON1, PRINTER ON FIRE, ASAP ZULU" kind of work, and then it wouldn't help with a console. Though if I needed to shut down my PC, hook up the console to start a game then maybe I could be effective (so I could spend the extra time on games). Then again, there's sla
    • There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.

      I thought that was just /. as a whole... but maybe I'm wrong, seeing as the Wii promises to use Opera for web browsing, and that will also let us get to /.

  • This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EggyToast ( 858951 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:11AM (#16081096) Homepage
    I was of the impression that everyone had pretty much decided whether they were a "pc fanboy," a "console fanboy," or just "someone who likes video games."

    Does it matter what platform a game comes out for? If a game is based on using the mouse or internet, it's currently served best by PCs. Hence the still-high number of RTS and FPS games. If it's adaptable to both PCs and consoles, a game tends to come out for both. And if it's made for a controller, it's a console game. The only real difference is the interface.

    This article just trots out the same tired "reasons" that everyone's heard already, and attempts to justify them as valid rationale for choosing consoles at the expense of PC gaming. Woohoo. Or you could not click on it, and save yourself from 4 pages of ad-heavy journalism practice. I don't think I've seen an article with more of that "intelliTXT" crap.

    • by slim ( 1652 )
      If a game is based on using the mouse or internet, it's currently served best by PCs.

      I could neatly refute that by citing Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast -- quite a good online experience, I imagine, unless you're as useless at Quake as I am, and playable using the Dreamcast mouse and keyboard.

      However, since very few people want to play console games sitting at a desk, you're still right about the mouse.

      I'm not letting you have the Internet argument any more though. Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube all had online ga
  • by ewg ( 158266 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:12AM (#16081103)
    I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.

    Standalone devices with predictable specs are just more stable than the zoo of general purpose computing systems, be they desktop, laptop, or mobile phone. Keep games where they belong.
    • by slim ( 1652 )
      I just got tired of games crashing my computer.

      Yep, that's what did it for me too. After spending a lot of money on a new PC specifically with games mind, and having spent countless hours messing around with DirectX settings and driver updates, I'd still be constantly saving in Monkey Island 3 because you never knew when the whole thing would freeze up. Eventually I realised: it's not worth spending time and money on making this work, when a console will just work first time.

      But the real decider is whether
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by plague3106 ( 71849 )
        Honestly, I don't know anyone that's had problems playing games. I haven't had a game that wouldn't 'just work' on a PC either.
        • by slim ( 1652 )
          Honestly, I don't know anyone that's had problems playing games.

          Either you're very, very lucky, or you're very new to it. It's probably 3 years or so since I gave up on PC gaming. I'm far more technically adept than most -- and have been gaming since the 8 bit era (when games would "just work") and through the DOS era when you had to build boot floppies of various kinds to allow games to fit in their 640KB -- but I've never owned a PC where gaming was reliable.

          I haven't had a game that wouldn't 'just work'
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by plague3106 ( 71849 )
            Either you're very, very lucky, or you're very new to it. It's probably 3 years or so since I gave up on PC gaming.

            I've been gaming on the computer since before Wolf3D. As I said, its not just me either. None of my friends have been having all the problems you describe.

            I'm far more technically adept than most -- and have been gaming since the 8 bit era (when games would "just work") and through the DOS era when you had to build boot floppies of various kinds to allow games to fit in their 640KB -- but I'v
      • 1997 called. I wants it's 9 year old video games back.

        Times have changed since 1997, both for PCs and consoles.
        • by slim ( 1652 )
          1997 called. I wants it's 9 year old video games back.

          Times have changed since 1997, both for PCs and consoles.


          I might have got my numbering wrong; we're talking Escape from Monkey Island -- which was released in late 2000. Which is still nearly 6 years ago. God I feel old. I believe our PC was underspecced in 2000, so I bought the game 3 years later, when we bought a PC specifically for the purpose of gaming. So this would have been around 2003, using Windows XP.

          I'll take some convincing that the stability
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BrookHarty ( 9119 )
        Whoa, Consoles just work? Ive had my fair share of xbox dvd-roms go bad, and PS/2 lock ups. To be honest, PC games are cheaper on sale week, and a PC can do a lot more than just games. And I havnt seen world of warcraft ported to xbox or ps2.

        The games I've had to update where online games, all games I've bought for PC work out of the box, unless there are multiplayer patchs (which also include new maps/etc)...

        While a console is nice for some games, I'd rather have a mouse+asdf keys over a joypad controlle
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        But the real decider is whether you prefer to play games sitting up at a desk, or slumped on an armchair. Console controllers aren't ideal in the former position, a keyboard and mouse are impractical in the latter.
        Since I'm at home sick today, in my recliner couch, posting this on a laptop with my laser mouse sitting on the arm of the couch beside me, I have to disagree. With the right mouse, keyboard and mouse works fine "slumped in an armchair".
    • Console + HDD = unfinished games
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dahamma ( 304068 )
      I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.

      I'd say lately I have played about 60/40% PC/console games - in fact, I can't remember the last crash on a PC game (maybe Oblivion a couple months ago?) while PGR3 on the 360 has crashed on me a few times, and NHL 2K6 was a TOTAL disaster (maybe I'll try to get about $3 for it used once EA NHL 07 comes out tomorrow...)

      I'd insert the obligatory joke about the 360 just being a Windows box anyway, blah, blah, so what's t
  • Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by colonslashslash ( 762464 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:12AM (#16081110) Homepage
    Neither is 'better'. They both have their merits, and generalising by claiming one platform is inherently better than the other is just stupid IMO. Serious gamers will have both anyway.


    Generally, I'm more of a PC gamer, but that's because I've always had a lot of PC hardware for work, home entertainment (yes, that's one way of saying high definition streaming porn) and the intertubes, so it's easier to grab a game for one of my boxes rather than run out and buy a console. Saying that, I still have quite a few consoles from years past. The NES still gets cracked out from time to time when I'm feeling nostalgic.

  • by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:16AM (#16081140) Homepage
    Some genres just don't work on Consoles and some just don't work on PCs.

    For instance, Street Fighter or Tekken just don't work on PCs and RTS don't work on Consoles. One genre that I think works well on both platforms though are First Person Shooters. I really don't think anyone can say that Golden Eye didn't work on the N64.
    • by hal2814 ( 725639 )
      "Some genres just don't work on Consoles and some just don't work on PCs."

      You have to be more specific than that. I've got a MAME box running Tekken 2 and Marvel Super Heroes just as good as my arcade boards can. It's a matter of default controls. PC games are typically written to be controlled by keyboard and mouse since that's the lowest common denominator.

      I had to hack up a USB gamepad and solder in leads to get some decent arcade controls in MAME. Now the MAME setup is pretty sweet even if my contro
    • Some genres just don't end up on consoles.. or don't anymore because they don't show off the uber-1337 graphics technology, or generate recurring revenue streams or whatever rot that the console makers want to cram down your throat on the box that they control yet have tricked you to part with your money for...

      PCs are open platforms. Games don't need to be sanctioned by the system manufacturer in order to run on them. Game, set, and match.
    • You're overgeneralizing. The issue is whether designers write their games with the system's control scheme in mind. RTS was hugely popular on the Gameboy Advance, and thanks to the touch screen on the DS the genre is even more of a hit on consoles. Any game can work on any platform as long as it considers the strengths of the user interface.
    • I have an adapter that lets me use the PS2 controller with my PC. Some games even take advantage of the rumble feature. This means I can have the same exact gameplay experience offered by any console.

      I agree that consoles allow for a more sociable gameplay experience, but that's only because of the physical arrangement of computer equipment. I can go out and buy a 20" or larger monitor, hide the case somewhere, get a cordless keyboard and mouse (or some device better suited to be used from the sofa) and set
  • I quit buying consoles when they quit distributing games in cartridges. To me, it was all about the load time. (Yes, I watch my DVDs with a player that skips all the legal shit, menus, etc. too.)
    • To me, it was all about the load time.

      Gamecube still has virtually no load times and especially when compared with PC the load times on consoles are still often a lot less. Exceptions are of course PC games which got ported to consoles, these often have noticable loading times, but still, compared to the time I have to waste with installation, copy-protection schemes, reboots, crashes and stuff on a PC consoles still come out as the winner in terms of 'time till the game is ready for play'.

  • by Demon-Xanth ( 100910 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:24AM (#16081227)
    I have a family member that writes for a major gaming website, the single largest reason why he perfers console gaming:

    The games just work.

    You open a game, pop it in, and in a few minutes you're into the game (depends on how long the cut scenes are). There's no installation, configuration, tweaking. Nothing. It just works. Now, he plays ALOT of games, but even when he gets home to enjoy them, he still picks up a pad. The only games I've seen on his PC are the ones that came with Win2k. It's not that he CAN'T play a PC game, he just doesn't enjoy messing around with drivers and that sort of thing when he could be shooting zombies in the head instead.

    As geeks we're addicted to tweaking stuff, but you can't forget the joy when you open up something, plug it in, and it just works.
    • Your arguments are the same as mine for why I prefer PC games. Sure, it's nice to pop in a CD and that's all there is to it. However, I much prefer taking the time to install the game once for 10 minutes and enjoy lightning fast load times for the next 10-100 hours that I'll be playing it.

      You can drive to the laundromat every week or you can buy your own washer and dryer. Both take the same amount of time, but it takes 15 extra minutes to drive to and from the laundromat.
  • I've finally got a PC powerful enough to play modern PC games: a MacBook :) . First game I installed on it was Half-Life 2 as it was never, ever going to get ported to OS X and that has to be the most unpleastant installation and purchasing experiance I've ever had - but the game was great!

    An hour or two into the game and I'm begining to wonder why I ever bought a console. 2 hours in and I'm begining to realize that its pretty much the same experiance as Halo 2, but with frame drops and installation problem
    • I've finally got a PC powerful enough to play modern PC games: a MacBook :) . First game I installed on it was Half-Life 2 as it was never, ever going to get ported to OS X and that has to be the most unpleastant installation and purchasing experiance I've ever had - but the game was great!

      Just curious... did you boot into XP with BootCamp or use CrossOver Office? CodeWeavers claim to support Half Life 2 [codeweavers.com] and I have been wondering how well it works but haven't gotten around to installing it yet.

      • Bootcamp. Part of my frustration with the process was that the 8GB partition that I created initial was too small by about 250MB (grrrr) once the patches etc had been installed. 10GB to fit XP and Half-life is a workable minimum - but I kinda wish I'd gone for 15.

        Other than that it went pretty smoothy, if not incredibly slowly.

        I've had bad experiances with CrossOver Office in the past. If you can get it to work as well as BootCamp I'd be very interested as all the rebooting is a little tedious.
        • I've had bad experiances with CrossOver Office in the past. If you can get it to work as well as BootCamp I'd be very interested as all the rebooting is a little tedious.

          I have been doing a little googling and apparently Half Life 2 works quite well under CrossOver Mac apart from a few teething troubles, i.e. expect it to core once in a while (quite a long while judging from experiences with the latest CrossOver Mac builds) and the graphics have to be toned down a little but that is to be expected from in a
  • This is not news. It's a manufactured story from GWN with 10 "facts" that demonstrate specious reasoning at best.

    Let's take a look at them.

    1 - "It's cheaper!". Depending on what you're playing and how you look at it. A casual gamer can purchase an entire system and be playing Bejeweled or whatever for the price of a Xbox 360 alone. Is a high-end PC and nice monitor more expensive than a 360, good HDTV, and surround-sound system? *Maybe*. Toss in that every game you buy for the 360 is $10 more than the
  • Except I already have a computer with a pretty hoppin' graphics card for graphics work.

    If I were looking at buying a computer for just gaming , yeah, I'd probably go with a console first, but what's the problem with having both?

    What job-having tech-nerds don't have several piles of old computers and old consoles taking up space in the basement or spare bedroom?

    Just about every working geek I know can go "Okay, so I've had: A Colecovision, a 2600, Master System, Genesis, SNES, Game gear, Playstation, N64, D
  • by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:29AM (#16081267) Journal
    1. It's cheaper.
    This is hard to argue with, but as the saying goes, "You get what you pay for." Despite what they are trying to turn consoles into, you still can do more things besides gaming with a PC. (And they are not all boring things like typing papers and doing spreadsheets.)

    2. Every game is guaranteed to work.
    Um, not quite true. I have known a few games because of defects that would not work right out. Granted these were manufacturing errors and nothing else. Also, if you are truly PC gaming, the odds of running into a game that will not work are low. You will likely have a system meant to run the games you play. Also, the return statement is a bit off. Some places will take back open items and those that don't often won't take back your open console game either, so this point is sort of moot.

    3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
    How many games have I had to overly tweak or specialize....maybe two. The settings allow more PCs to play games, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out. Most games implement the Bad, Better, Best system of setting for the real dim witted ones. And as for the articles, you get what is advertised with a console game, this is not true. I simply point to the PS2 debacle. You know, when they were not clear pre-launch about shots being in-game.

    4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from.
    This is becoming a bit rarer. If those are the games you want, fine. If they are not, this point is, well, pointless.

    5. Xbox Live.
    Well, let's see. Free online play (except for a few games). The point about chatting while watching a movie, I point you to Steam (so every Valve game, which happen to have the highest online numbers short the MMOs). Oh, and don't forget the extremely high number of people paying to play MMOs. There is a business making money hand-over-fist.

    6. Backwards compatibility.
    You are joking right? The Xbox 360 has half-assed backwards compatibility. We shall see what the PS3 brings. The Dreamcast, as much as I loved it, never had backwards compat to the Saturn. Then there is that time we switched Nintendo consoles, how many of those were backwards compat, unless they sold add-ons. Of course, nothing was backwards compat with the Cube, cause well we went from Cart to CD. These examples sort of shoot the Win98SE to XP argument, which can be resolved with various tools and emulators, which are legal. So there goes that idea.

    7. Virus, adware, and spyware free.
    This is a point? Users only have themselves to blame for viruses, adware or spyware. With a few exceptions, this shit has to be installed by the user in the end. Most PC gamers are savvy enough to know how to avoid this stuff. And don't think that with online connectivity, people will not find a way to add viruses to the mix with consoles. (Or possibly spyware or adware for that matter.)

    8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
    So can a PC. Remember, that cards are coming out (and many sub-$400) that are being designed for HDCP output, which means they should work with TVs fairly well, and will be able to play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (or both) once PC drives are available. Your other next gen consoles currently will have Blu-Ray (PS3), HD-DVD (360 w/ add-on), and neither (the Wii). So tell me who wins this one. The guy who can have both formats.

    9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse.
    HAHA. You can buy controllers for a PC. Controllers still have some use in the PC game world, but you play an FPS between a gamer with controllers and one with Keyboard/Mouse, and you will see the controller boy get slaughtered. It is this separation that keeps most developers from allowing the console and PC versions to be played together.

    10. Controller innovation.
    Again, you are kidding right. You think they h
    • and they should be obvious. The article seemed to be reaching to make consoles sound better. I'll take a PC over a console for gaming any day! For me, the big point is being able to use a mouse for FPS on the PC. Playing FPS games on consoles is painful! Consoles are only great if you like repetitive arcade style gaming.... meh, not for me.
    • by biglig2 ( 89374 )
      I'm sure this is a dumb-ass question, but why don't manufacturers release a WASD+mouse controller for consoles? I mean, Guitar Hero and DDR and so on all come with their own controllers, so the idea is already there.

      I can understand the stupid reasons why consoles don't just come with keyboard and mouse support and two extra USB sockets in the back (so they can sell you expensive "internet" options, so that the keyboard people don't thrash the controller people on XBox live, so they only have to code for on
    • by Damek ( 515688 )
      Yay, you took the bait and wasted another 10 minutes of your life! Hooray for you, you're the winner!
  • ... for the article that definitly explains why oranges are better than apples.
  • For gods sake... it reads like one of those "10 reasons why I love my Macintosh" articles. Excuse me while I poop on this article. Aaaaaaahh... much better.
  • #4 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:36AM (#16081332) Homepage
    "4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison. Whether you're hot for Mario, Kratos, or Ryu Hayabusa, you'll find their newest releases on consoles. Sure, the PC has some exclusive titles, but sooner or later they'll find their way onto your living room television since that's where the money is at."

    Yeah.. lot's of console exlusives.. for DIFFERENT COLSOLES... How about that newest Metal Gear Solid for your X-Box or Wii, or Perhaps you're wanting to play Halo3 on your shiny new PS3. What are you going to do, go out and buy 3 different systems to play all the games you want? I've seen people do it. Point being, consoles have their downside too.
  • How can it be cheaper to buy a console when I already have a PC? I might not have the latest hot graphics card, but most games don't need them.

    Also, I don't have a TV.

    I am sure there are lots of advantages for owning a console, but process of elimination leads me to the PC.
    • Thanks for finally bringing up the television issue. New consoles demand (but don't require) large screen HD televisions, many of which have no speakers. That primary prerequisite alone is more expensive than a decent gaming PC. Then there's issues like a stereo reciever, speakers, a bracket or wooden stand for everything, extra cables (for the console and for the TV), not to mention an entire room of your house to dedicate to all this stuff.
  • uh, Bullshit? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Inominate ( 412637 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @10:45AM (#16081394)
    Seriously though whats wrong with this?

    1. Cheaper
      Yea if you go per-console, not over time. Not when you compare replayability vs cost vs Free games. Even more so when you start to compare capability vs cost.

    2. Every game is guarenteed to work
      This is the only true advantage to consoles. It's also only true because stupid users BREAK their PC's. Not a fault of the platform, it's a fault of the user. Consoles protect you from yourself.

    3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
      i.e. You _CAN'T_ tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look BETTER.

    4. Lots of console exclusives
      Lots of PC exclusives. While consoles lead in single player games, they're a few generations away from being able to compete as ONLINE gaming platforms, beyond the 10 year old FPS "matchmaking" style online play.

    5. xbox live
        See previous comment

    6. backwards compatibility
      Backwards compatiblity is broken only relatively rarely, and historicly has been made available again fairly soon. When dealing with consoles this becomes even more true. How many of us owned an NES or an SNES? How many of us can STILL play our games on those consoles? Vs., How many of us owned an NES or SNES and now have to play the games we owned on emulators, on a _PC_?

    7. Virus, adware, and spyware free.
        "No porn. 'Nuff said."

    8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
        No they don't. Bigger screen does not mean looks better. A HD TV from a couch is an entirely ACCEPTABLE way to game, but it's by no means anywhere near a match for contemporary computer displays. Compare the cost of that HDTV with the cost of a good CRT, LCD, or Projector.

    9. Controllers are more comfortable
        Console controllers are ideal for some games. Keyboard and mouse are INFINITELY better for any sort of FPS game. Cursor based games range from difficult to impossible to implement well on a console. At the same time, console style controllers are readily available for PCs for MUCH less than the cost of an extra console controller.

    10. Controller innovation.
      Yea, nintendo has finally come up with a way to implement SOME cursor based games on a console. It's an innovation for consoles, not games in general.

    • >It's also only true because stupid users BREAK their PC's.

      Starforce and other anti-pirating nonsense break my PCs. The PC gaming publishers need to lay off invading my machine with their unstable invasive software.
  • Why not just be happy with games from a year ago and buy 2nd/3rd release of the console of your choice and buy a relatively cheap PC that can easily play games from 1-2 years ago?

    I also don't buy the social argument. It's much easier to bring laptops for a little network gaming with friends than consoles and a bunch of TVs/good laptops with TV inputs. A cheap laptop can still play some fun classics, like Starcraft.

  • better you are not a gamer. Both side has very good points. The only problem with this article is Xbox Live is NOT a console win, it's a specific console feature.

    Honestly now that consoles has patches. I game on the console a lot more, but at the same time the PC is my method of choice for modable games and games I want the mouse for. Then again HL2 is coming to the Xbox 360 with all the best First-party mods which is an awesome move.

    Overall both are great experiences, for those on a budget grab a console
  • I love PC gaming for the controllers. The keyboard + mouse controller combo is far and away my favorite controller system for most games. Until the Wii, no console controller ever even stood a chance of comparing positively. I bought the Game Cube and PS2, and played both in a limited fashion solely because of the controllers. I kept going back to PC games (even the limited selection available for my Linux system) mostly because the controllers were far better than the console.

    Console gaming is great fo
  • I remember playing "adventure" on the console of a PDP-11 in the early 1980s!

    You are in a forest, the teletype printed, and I had to enter "N" for "go North"!

    Later, computer consoles were sometimes screens, and you could go into the machine room and play rogue or "larn" or "trek" or whatever, with the disk drives making noises and sometimes wobbling like washing machines with an unblanced spin, and the tape drives sometimes clicking and whirring. You could play until your feet got cold from the air conditi
  • Here is the actual #1 reason PC gaming beats console gaming! No need to void your warranty because of mod chips. So easy and quick to download all the latest gamez from the bit torrent sites.
  • PCs are cheaper (Score:3, Informative)

    by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Monday September 11, 2006 @11:58AM (#16082032) Journal
    I don't know why this myth is still alive. Yeah, it was true back in the day--very, VERY true when you compared a $100 Nintendo with a $2000+ lower end PC--but the price of consoles keep rising while the price of a PC has been in a freefall for years now.

    Do the math. If you save the chassis/ps, monitor, hard drive (really, a 5 year old 60-80 giger is just fine for gaming--any more is necessarly only for media collection) and peripherals from your current box and pick up a good mobo+proc deal on Outpost.com or Newegg.com along with some value ram, you can easily have a modern machine for under $200, even under $150. (If you're skiddish about DIY boxes, you can troll a site like Fatwallet.com and within a month I'll guarantee you'll see a very respectable box for under $300 shipped--probably a Dell or eMachines--but for the moment let's assume you're not technophobic.)

    So how much was the 360 again... with a hard drive? Oh look, that leaves you with $200 for a shiny new graphics card, which is good enough to easily play games for many years to come. No, in 3 or 4 years' time you probably won't be able to set the resolution and antialiasing features to the max without some slowdown, but you'll still kick the crap out of console graphics, if indeed graphics is your sole reason for PC gaming--me, I'm more inclined to buy a $100 graphics card. (I'm a PC gamer not for the graphics, but because the games I like--RTSes/TBSes, FPSes, non-Final Fantasy style RPGs--have very crappy/nonexistent console equivalents. Morrowind for the PC is a completely different game from Morrowind for the Xbox, and Halo isn't even remotely close to HL2 or Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2. And yes, there was HL2 for the Xbox, but it was an utter joke.)

    And hell, most of the time you won't even have to spend the $200 to upgrade your mobo/proc/ram. Mine are 3 year old and still more than enough for today's games. Moore's Law might not be dead (depends on whom you ask), but the need for exponentially faster CPUs for gaming certainly is. I wouldn't be too shocked if a mid-range system of today can run games in 2012 so long as you've got a couple gigs of ram and a video card that's only 1-2 years old.

    So yeah, console gamers you keep telling yourselves that your $400 Xbox 360 and the extra $10/month you spend for the privlege of playing it over the internet (I didn't even take this into account--this is an additional $120 a year, thus rendering any price quibbing moot. An additional $500-$600 spent between console generations means a PC will *always* be cheaper.\) saves you sooooo much money. Just pardon us if us stereotypical, elitist PC gamers laugh our asses off at you and your crazy delusions.

    Now, for the caveats: I'm willing to grant the Wii an exception to all this because 1) It's going to be cheap. 2) Online play will be free. 3) The Gamecube had tons of wonderful games that simply have no PC equivalent (Mario Party, Smash Bros. Melee, platformers, etc.) and I expect the same will be true of the Wii. I'm also willing to grant an exception for the techno-phobic who absolutely do not want to open their box even to swap out a graphics card--for these people, it'll always be cheaper to buy a new console. But I do NOT think this is an acceptable excuse here, amongst my fellow geeks. If you prefer platformers and party games and FF-style RPGs and thus you prefer consoles then say so, but enough with the "OMG PCS ARE SO EXPENSIVE!!!11" bullshit. It's not true, and it hasn't been true for years now.

Dreams are free, but you get soaked on the connect time.

Working...