PC vs Console gaming analysis

[Matt]

This is split out from the FarCry 2 thread. Please use this thread to compare PC gaming versus its console equivalent - Number45

All this talk of PC gaming at ?400 being less value than a console version at ?40 isn't really accurate. If we're taking in to account the cost of PC hardware, you've got to take in to account of console hardware. Yes you already have the console to play it on, but you paid for that initially.

If we're talking the comparative cost of the game, the PC version will be at least ?10 less than the console version after all.

[Malc]

Not when you buy a console that'll play all the games designed for that platform for 5-7 years. Whereas a PC you'll need to regularly update to play the latest games on it. Which will end up far in excess financially of what you'll pay for consoles.

[Matt]

Well, the graphics "push" on PCs has been calming down, believe it or not. There are still better GPUs being released, but with the exception of Crysis, most games have hit a solid 60fps for the last few years since the 8800 was released. My PC has a 8800 in it, I see no reason to upgrade as it can run all my games 60fps, even newish ones like UT3 - Epic have coded a great engine there

A counter argument to your point is that, while with a PC you'd have upgrade quite extensively over 5 to 7 years to keep up with the latest games, is that you'll be getting better graphics than the consoles. This console gen has been quite a let down graphically, PCs had it beat from Day 1 which wasn't the case with past gens. So while 5 or 7 years after the 360s launch, you'll still have "nice" graphics, what you're getting on PCs will be vastly superior [subject to the PC market not folding, but that's another debate!].

Financially, PC gaming may work out less than you think Given a 5 year life cycle, and say you buy 20 games a year at an average price:

Hardware (at launch of course!) £300
20 games a year for 5 years @ £35, average online price = £3500
Total = £3800

PC
Gaming Spec now = £500
£150 a year upgrade for 5 years = £750
20 games a year for 5 years @ £25, average online price = £2500
Total = £3750


Hurrah, PC gaming is cheaper! LOL. Things don't work out like that, but you get the point. The cheaper games do matter, though PC games have less resale value than console versions, if [like me] you don't keep your games once completed.

I won't count the £200 Live fee for 5 years, or whatever you end up paying. PC gaming is FREE

Way off topic now

[EvilBoris]

Really though, in the last 3 years other than Crysis I haven't seen any other game that makes me think

WOW I want a high spec PC so I can play that.

[Matt]

There's not much on PC these days that's not on consoles. However, with the PC version, you tend to get better quality textures, better expansion possibilities (levels etc, good to see this on PS3 UT3), and as discussed, better frame rate. Higher screen resolutions, a load of AA, better AF.

Depends on your kind of games as well of course. Any RTS fan would go for a PC of course, as would MMORPG players. I play neither. As a FPS fan, I greatly prefer keyboard and mouse controls, but that's my own preference [and a superior control method ].

PC gaming can still be a lot of messing around, but there's more flexibility. Compare a game on Live to the same game on a PC, and tell me the PC version hasn't got a fraction of the latency! Then again, you don't have the ease of use of Live and easy voice comms.

With devs targeting consoles, PC versions won't be big leaps over those versions. As you know, the PC market is not great right now, which is having a big impact on development resources.

Still, if you get the chance, compare the 360 version of FC2 to the PC version, on a £500 PC system, side by side. It would be interesting hearing what you think.

[Eight Rooks]

Still, if you get the chance, compare the 360 version of FC2 to the PC version, on a ?500 PC system, side by side. It would be interesting hearing what you think.

Previews seem to indicate consoles are not really that close. I don't really care; I already have a PS3, but I don't have the money to spend upgrading my old PC, let alone buying a new one. It'd be nice to play Far Cry 2 at utterly top of the line settings but the prospect of not being able to is hardly keeping me awake at nights. I can live without Crysis, put it that way, so this isn't bothering me too much - the PC would have to have much more than a single very pretty open-world FPS (I'm terrible at RTS' and I won't pay individual monthly fees for MMOs) to make me switch back.

[Matt]

Previews seem to indicate consoles are not really that close. I don't really care; I already have a PS3, but I don't have the money to spend upgrading my old PC, let alone buying a new one. It'd be nice to play Far Cry 2 at utterly top of the line settings but the prospect of not being able to is hardly keeping me awake at nights. I can live without Crysis, put it that way, so this isn't bothering me too much - the PC would have to have much more than a single very pretty open-world FPS (I'm terrible at RTS' and I won't pay individual monthly fees for MMOs) to make me switch back.

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting anyone upgrade for FC2 at all. I was arguing the point because some people were being dismissive of the PC when it offers a great gaming experience, usually superior to consoles, at a more reasonable price than many think.

[Team Andromeda]

Still, if you get the chance, compare the 360 version of FC2 to the PC version, on a £500 PC system, side by side. It would be interesting hearing what you think.

Yeah next year I'll have to upgrade my PC to play RAGE ect .

I'll stick with the consoles and the piece of mind that 4 years down the line , I can still buy the latests 360 games and they'll work and look/run just as good , no matter when you bought the console


Which ever way you cut it, that doesn't happen on the PC, That 's why one is called a console and one is called a PC , and to compare the both is rather silly imo

[ridgeracer]

everything breaks.

But for me, I can see the potential for a PC but from personal practice with games and PC's it just seems a struggle to make them work at a constant level.

Sure they may reproduce the graphics better but nothing beats just getting a new game opening up the tray and putting a CD in KNOWING that you will be playing the game at full performance not worring of drops in frame rates or texture etc.

I can see the appeal of PC but only if there full up spec and ready to rock and rol, without the hassle!

[Team Andromeda]

Point is. it does matter when people buy a 360 or PS3 , every game will run and look just as good no matter when you bought the system , this comes at a price of being a close system of course. But I'll rather that model , than needed to upgrade the PC every couple of years to play the latest games at their finest.

[Daragon]

I'd happily take a PC over my 360 any day - upgrading components is never essential to benefit from the latest games, sure they might not run as quickly, but you can bet your arse they'll run a damn sight better than on a console.

[Dazzyman]

Its a daft topic in Far cry 2 for me. PC when Crysis came out £2k + still couldnt run it. If you went out and bought one their now worth about £500 so you just lost a massive chunk and still couldnt play Crysis at 60fps. Theirs loads of games that cant run at a stable 60fps on PC from that era. I myself spent £1800 on one that year and the likes of COH, Supreme Commander off the top of my head are two more that cant run stable. SC is a monster game that eats quads for breakie same as Crysis. If a console breaks for £300 you send it back for up to 5yrs for nowt and get a new one zero hassle in reparing it yourself. If a PC breaks you have to take the bits out and send it back and wait for RMA if they accept it and then reiinstall it all yourself. When crysis came out they wanted you to pay £800 for SLI to get it to run sub 50fps at around 40fps with dual cores/quads. It was a badly optomised game and they have learnt from that with Warhead but all of us still went and bought the tech for it and got burnt. I have zero intrest in PC gaming now since then. Ive been a avid PC gamer/builder since 1991 and the gaming scene is dying its death on it. This year theirs been Warhead really and incoming WOW addon which I aint intrested in and DOW2. I used to get one PC game a week easily now Im lucky if I get 1 PC game every 4months.

Back to Farcry 2?

[Malc]

Back to Farcry 2?

Not just yet.

I much prefer the ease of use with consoles as well. To be able to sit in a comfortable couch, with a wireless controller, 50" TV and surround sound is something I believe you can't enjoy as much with a PC.

Sure, the surround sound works, but you also have to have a big computer desk to hold the computer, you also have to sit right by it as you need a flat surface for a keyboard and mouse. Another problem that comes with sitting up close is you can't have a TV bigger than 25-30" otherwise your eyes will end up bleeding, and you sure as hell can't sit on a lovely sofa by the computer.

The price to upgrade PC's to play games at a good looking state and running consistently smoothly for newly released games, coupled with my aforementioned points about ease of use makes me enjoy console gaming a whole lot more. Even if games don't look quite as good as a 2 grand PC that runs every new game PERFECTLY. I know I can put in a disc in my 360 or PS3, and it will run to the best of it's ability which is how the developers have intended. And everyone else is playing it just like me, getting exactly the same experience.

[Dazzyman]

Ah yes forgot about that m8 Theirs quite alot of PC games even multi format ones that dont do 5.1 and you have to use say CMMS3d to simulate 2channel over 5.1 which I dont want. Ive paid good money for a PC and I have 5.1 capability and its all sat their shoved into my Onkyo 605 thru analog interconnect so give us it in GOW on PC! Its also silly that say COD4 comes out multiformat and the first thing you have to do as a 8800 series owner is to instantly download the beta driver so it doenst glitch like crazy and then use drive cleaner reset the machine install it then tweak it (and in my case spend 10mins putting all my icons back in their places) then finally install it and over an hour later start then tweak the graphics options to get it running as smooth as it can then with 3hours start playing. Oh and Vista who can forget the lovely vista virtual address file nightmare in games how long did it take them to fix that again over a 1yr?

Im lucky I shove everything into my Sony X so I have had my PC slapped up to it for 2yrs now and same with sound system 5.1/7.1 its all on the same screen for gaming just different channel but Ive had enough of faffing for a day to get a game working then stable then with more graphics and tweaking when I can get the same game on console looking hardly any different and usually sounding better.

[Team Andromeda]

And don't give me the bull oh my ages old PC can play the latest games as well as the 360 ect . I have a Dual Core (2.8 Ghz) , Geforce 7800 and 4 gig of ram and it can not play Lost Planet or DMC IV as well as the 360 .

PC is fine for those with the money and will to upgrade and pay for the latest stuff, me I'm happy with the console and its setup .
Happy in the Knowledge that I will not to have to upgrade my CPU , Memory , GPU to play the latest games maxed out , that's not kocking the PC , its just the way I like it