It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Comparing PC and console gaming(125 posts)(125 posts)
(125 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
timppu: Those who are still interested in running their older PC games, and which have not found a good way to play them all in their new system, do.
avatar
Neobr10: That doesn't invalidate my argument. I said that the majority doesn't keep old PCs around. For consoles it's different. Most of my friends still have a SNES around, but i can't find anyone with a 486 or a Pentium. PCs become obsolete at a greater extent than consoles.
Then those people are simply not interested in running older PC games, or they can run them already on their more modern PCs. Useless hardware is of course kicked out no matter whether it is a PC or a console, e.g. there wasn't probably much reason to keep a Playstation around, if you had PS2 too (as it had full backwards compatibility).

I know several people who have kept their old PCs around though, and they are not even gamers. They give e.g. the older laptop/desktop to their kid when you get a new one, and so on. Some replace obsolete Windows versions with some Linux distro etc. PC hardware doesn't suddenly become useless just because you buy a new PC. And unlike you suggested earlier, most people do not update PCs by replacing components inside; they buy a whole new PC complete, save for maybe peripherals like monitors, keyboards and printers.

And then you also have to take into account that hardware ultimately fails too. My big brother's (who is one of those with two old desktops and a couple of old laptops running in his basement) family has now a bunch of Wii games they can't play because their Wii got broken, and now he is contemplating whether to buy another Wii, or Wii-U, or just forget about their Wii game library. To me it would seem the CD and DVD based consoles break more easily than the old cartridge-based systems.

avatar
Neobr10: For me it's much better to emulate stuff on my Android phone than on my PC since i carry my phone with me all the time.
I treat emulated games the same way as any games. I don't necessarily need them in my pocket all the time any more than I need to be able to play Crysis 2 while I'm waiting for a bus, but a laptop is a nice compromise for me (for both emulation and gaming in general), ie. portable, if not mobile. Simple casual games are mostly what I want for my mobile phone or tablet, and they don't need to be emulated.

The main reason I am not so excited trying to set up emulation on these smartphones/tablets/consoles is that these devices come and go. Got your old Amiga games running on PS2? Great, except that the same emulators will most probably not work on your next console, especially if it is not from Sony. Same with these tablets and smartphones, e.g. I now have an Android phone and tablet, but I feel it is quite probable my next smartphone/tablet will not be Android-based. Could be e.g. WinRT. At which point I'd have to try to figure out the whole emulation thing all over again for the new device.

PCs are more uniform, the very same emulator I used in my earlier PC most probaly works on my next PC too. DOSBox, WinUAE, MAME32, you name it. And unlike most of the Android offerings, these emulators are free too. And unlike with e.g. consoles, they don't require me to mod my PC.

Also the controls may not be that suitable for emulating many old gaming devices, especially with touchscreen devices.
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
ET3D: mouse and monitor combination beats a controller + TV experience any day.
avatar
orcishgamer: This really is a matter of preference, I prefer the opposite.
Quoting out of context is a matter of preference. I prefer the opposite. What I said was "when it comes to buying downloadable games a keyboard, mouse and monitor..." It wasn't talking about playing games, I was talking about buying them, and I think that the store experience on a PC is vastly superior to the store experience on consoles. When it comes to searching and browsing a store and buying games, the PC is better, and the sales are also much better (but that's an unrelated matter). I also find it easier to browse the game collection on Steam, and I have 20 times the number of games on the Xbox.

To answer Neobr10, yes, you can download a lot of games on all consoles, although far as I know Live and PSN don't have all games, either new or older. That's true for Steam too, but possibly to a lesser extent. Still, the consoles have a lot less disk space than a gaming PC, and it's not all that trivial to upgrade it (although I think I remember that the PS3 can use standard mobile drives).

What I'm trying to say is that the argument that consoles are easier to use isn't exactly true. While it's true that PC's are in some ways more complex, consoles can be quite clunky to use and the PC can beat them at certain things.
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: Are you honestly comparing digital distribution on consoles to the PC?
Yes

avatar
StingingVelvet: I'm fine with saying neither platform is better, it depends on your priorities, lifestyle and whatever else. You are going way overboard in playing defense though. You don't need to twist shit to try and make every aspect of consoles match a PC, it won't happen, they both have strengths and weaknesses.

In this thread you come across like the guy defending his bitchy girlfriend to all his buddies.
Thanks for the argumentum ad hominem. This just shows that you have no rational arguments to counter what i said.

Feel free to have the last word, i'm not wasting my time with you.
Post edited January 13, 2013 by Neobr10
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
timppu: To me it would seem the CD and DVD based consoles break more easily than the old cartridge-based systems.
It was inevitable, really, the more complex something is the more likely something can go wrong. The worst part is that I don't think the console makers really mind; provides a nice avenue for planned obsolescence and generates extra sales from people who'd rather not have a library of unplayable games.
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
Darkcloud: only the first PS3s where backwards compatible to PS2 and even there the compatibility is far from perfect
This is not true. PS2 compability on the first PS3 models was perfect since there was full hardware backwards compability. It wasn't even emulation. The first PS3 models had both the CPU and the GPU of the PS2.
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
ET3D: Still, the consoles have a lot less disk space than a gaming PC, and it's not all that trivial to upgrade it (although I think I remember that the PS3 can use standard mobile drives).
It is trivial to upgrade it. You just have to buy a new HD and plug it in. And the PS3 supports pretty much any notebook HD. Upgrading HD is much easier than on PC, and you can backup of all your data on a external HD on the PS3. The Wii U supports USB storage, which means you can use an external HD with it and store all your digital games on it. It couldn't get any easier.

avatar
ET3D: What I'm trying to say is that the argument that consoles are easier to use isn't exactly true. While it's true that PC's are in some ways more complex, consoles can be quite clunky to use and the PC can beat them at certain things.
But how aren't consoles easier? For console games you just have to put the disc in and play, there's no online activation or anything. In fact, you don't even need to download patches, just disconnect your console from the net and you won't ever need to download patches or update your console. You don't even need to ever connect your console to the net if you want to play singleplayer only.

Let's say you buy Battlefield 3 for PC, for example. First, you will need to install Origin, make an account, sign in, install the game, download huge updates, and only then you'll be able to play. Now, if you buy the same game for the PS3 or the Xbox 360 you just need to put the disc in and play (maybe the PS3 version requires install, i don't know). You don't need an Origion account, you don't need to activate your game online, and you don't need to download patches unless you want to play multiplayer.

Same goes for Steamworks games. Even Tages and SecuROM create a hassle that just doesn't exist on consoles.
Post edited January 13, 2013 by Neobr10
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
Darkcloud: only the first PS3s where backwards compatible to PS2 and even there the compatibility is far from perfect
avatar
Neobr10: This is not true. PS2 compability on the first PS3 models was perfect since there was full hardware backwards compability. It wasn't even emulation. The first PS3 models had both the CPU and the GPU of the PS2.
Only the first NTSC models, the PAL models where right from the beginning partly software emulation and PS1 is completely software emulation on both and this list shows that even the NTSC models aren't perfect on playing all games:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3_backward_compatible_PlayStation_2_and_PlayStation_games

What I have seen in the last few years that while PC games are still give some more problems they are rarely very big problems and if they are there is often a way to fix it yourself or with a community patch. On console games you have to wait for a fix from the developer if they ever provide one.
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
Neobr10: But how aren't consoles easier? For console games you just have to put the disc in and play, there's no online activation or anything. In fact, you don't even need to download patches, just disconnect your console from the net and you won't ever need to download patches or update your console. You don't even need to ever connect your console to the net if you want to play singleplayer only.
Yes and no. Many PS3 games require installing before you can play at all, and you also need to update to the latest system software if you don't have it already (I'm not sure whether 360/Wii U have such requirements).

There are also quite a few popular games that are broken in their out-of-box state (up to and including glitches that make it impossible to finish the game), making patching essentially a necessity, and an increasing number of games are tying some bundled single player content to single-use codes; similarly, console expansions bought in stores sometimes have a disc to play from but often it's just a key card and you have to download it.

Consoles have inherited all the PC's weaknesses just as the PC is eliminating some of them (e.g. patching; on Steam and Origin your games update automatically whereas on consoles the system only sees the patch when you actually go to launch that game). The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised to see Steam-style online activation become standard on the next Xbox and/or PlayStation to further harm used games, with the disc running in "demo mode" even for single player unless the single-use code is activated.
Post edited January 13, 2013 by Arkose
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
Neobr10: Thanks for the argumentum ad hominem. This just shows that you have no rational arguments to counter what i said.

Feel free to have the last word, i'm not wasting my time with you.
I'm not arguing with you, I am telling you how you come across to a person who favors neither side, whether you believe it or not.
Posted January 13, 2013
avatar
Arkose: Yes and no. Many PS3 games require installing before you can play at all
Yes, i know that, i have a PS3 myself, but the amount of games that need installation is rather slim. The only ones i came accross so far were GTA 4 and MGS 4. I don't play PS3 that much, though. Installing games on the Xbox 360 is completely optional. It does improve load times, though.
avatar
Arkose: you also need to update to the latest system software if you don't have it already (I'm not sure whether 360/Wii U have such requirements).
The necessary system updates are within the game disc. My point is that you don't even need to connect to the net to be able to play your games.

avatar
Arkose: There are also quite a few popular games that are broken in their out-of-box state (up to and including glitches that make it impossible to finish the game), making patching essentially a necessity, and an increasing number of games are tying some bundled single player content to single-use codes; similarly, console expansions bought in stores sometimes have a disc to play from but often it's just a key card and you have to download it.
Of course patching games is always the best thing to do. You missed my point completely. What i said is that you don't ever need to go online to play your games, there are no activations or anything, which makes it much less hassle than on PC. Whether or not updates the game is brokwn without updates is a different story.

avatar
Arkose: The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised to see Steam-style online activation become standard on the next Xbox and/or PlayStation to further harm used games, with the disc running in "demo mode" even for single player unless the single-use code is activated.
It's possible, but i doubt it. I think such a move would backfire, especially after the Wii U had no form of DRM. Nintendo is a very important player in the market and they haven't adopted any sort of activation to block second hand games. I think Nintendo has set the trend for the next-gen.
Posted January 13, 2013
I have had a few FPS games on consoles But other than the N64 (having buttons for strafing made it easier) i have never been able to play them effectively as i find when moving to aim i have found myself to be very imprecise with the two analog sticks
Posted January 13, 2013
I have a console only because some publisher won't publish much some games genres I like on PCs : Fighting games and beat'em alls and also because their communities play there (mandatory for fighting games). There's nothing else you cannot have with a PC and a little bit of tweaking. The last and sad point for the consoles : You can play a game that works instead of an awful PC port, and of course the god-damned exclusives.
Posted January 13, 2013
I enjoy games and I don't care about the platform, with the exception of iPhone/Android-based games because I have a hard time with touchscreens that don't allow styluses.
Posted January 13, 2013
I wish we could get Japanese based games on PC, but that's the main reason i bought the PS3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_V_Ydk0ZLc
Posted January 14, 2013
I think that console users are just used enough to them that they don't see the problems. I'm sure it's similar for the PC side. :)

I bought a 4GB Xbox 360 very recently (less than 2 months) and I still find it a hassle to use. For example at first I needed to create a profile and avatar, and now when I turn on the Xbox I have to choose the profile, and when I run games I often have to log into my account again, and then I have to choose whether I want to store things on the internal memory, the external Flash drive (which I had to buy because 4GB makes using the console a terrible hassle), or the cloud.

Just one example of a continual hassle that I don't experience on the PC.

So sure it's possible to say "the Wii U is simpler" or whatever, but as a general rule I think it's impossible to claim that consoles in general are a seamless experience.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Comparing PC and console gaming(125 posts)(125 posts)
(125 posts)