or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Will you head back to the consoles, or double down on PC gaming ? Fall 2013 - The Great Decision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will you head back to the consoles, or double down on PC gaming ? Fall 2013 - The Great Decision - Page 2

post #31 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwatkins View Post

You bet on rumors however you want. I've been seeing these rumors for 3 years now and haven't seen anything materialize.
A 2013 launch for next gen is the "worst kept secret" in gaming right now. It's a done deal.

The question in this thread isn't "when?" but "if?" And it sounds like most of us have grown skeptical of the console side.
post #32 of 370
Thread Starter 
WARNING - Long rant about my PC gaming history (doesn't have much to do with the thread, lol)


I think a lot of this boils down to whether you were originally a PC gamer or a console gamer. Most of us started off as either one or the other, and then maybe we dipped our toes in the other one's water, but usually we come back home to where we were originally. I started off as an Atari gamer (yeah, I know, I'm old). I was on the console side of things with my Atari 2600. After a few years, my dad bought us an Atari 800XL computer. That was my first "dip" into the PC waters, but as anybody who had an Atari 800 knows, it came along before the whole "personal computer" thing happened. It may have technically been a computer, but I used it as mostly just a video game machine.

Around 1986, my Mom got me a NES. For 10 solid years I was 100 percent on the console side of things. I didn't know didly squat about anything PC related until about 1996. A friend of mine (who was also a gamer), was raving about how good Tomb Raider looked on his computer, and how it was leaps and bounds better than my Playstation version. He invited me over to check it out, and after seeing Lara Croft in all her 3DFx glory, I knew that I would be the new owner of a Pentium based computer and a 3DFx card. I think I started out with a Pentium 200 mmx or something like that. I had the VooDoo card in it, and I was off to the races. I still ended up buying a Nintendo 64 on launch day, and played it quite a bit, but the transition to PC gaming was underway. By 1998, I was a full blown PC gamer. I had already upgraded my PC several times, and was being totally blown away by games like Unreal and Half-Life. My Nintendo 64 and Playstation were collecting much dust in 1998 and 1999.

Then came e3 1999. I was lucky enough to be able to go to the show, and witness the arrival of the Sega Dreamcast. At that point in time, the Dreamcast looked like exactly what I wanted. Sega's NFL game looked amazing to me, as did many of the other games on display. When it arrived that September of 1999, I jumped on the bandwagon wholeheartedly, and my days as a "PC gamer" were numbered. I still had a gaming PC, and I would still play a few PC games here and there, but I was basically back to my roots as a console gamer.

The Dreamcast didn't last very long, but it didn't matter because the PS2 and Xbox were just around the corner. As my last gaming PC was now aging beyond the point of no return, I basically left the world of PC gaming, to never return. At least, that's what I thought. Little did I know that the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation would be drawn out for as many years as it has. I've always been an early adopter type. Normally, every 5 to 6 years there was a major gaming system released. I got my Xbox 360 in November 2005, and it was 2010, and I couldn't believe that not only was there not a new machine, no new machine was even on the horizon. I had heard from peeps on NeoGaf that if you're craving a new console, just build yourself a gaming PC, and enjoy higher resolutions and better framerates, and no tearing, etc, etc. I built a gaming PC in 2010 with the help of some peeps on here, and have now made the switch back to PC gaming.

Building this gaming PC rig wasn't quite the same as getting a new console, but it did provide a new gaming experience. I was playing basically the same games that I was playing on console, but playing them at higher resolutions with better framerates. Not quite a generational leap in terms of entertainment, but it still was exactly what the doctor ordered in terms of being so bored from the long, drawn out console lifecycle that we are in.

Now we are in the year 2013, and it looks like this long drawn out generation might finally come to a close this November. For me, it's going to be kinda interesting, because I'm going to be back into a scenario in which I'll likely have to choose between the two worlds. Since I started off as a console gamer, I'm always going to have a special place in heart for the console world. There is something truly special about opening up that box for the first time, and smelling that new plastic. You take the console out, and hook it all up, and you can't help but think of all the amazing experiences that it will provide. Building a gaming PC has it's own particular allure as well, no question, but I still think opening up a new console, and all the possibilities that come with it provide me with a bit more excitement... We'll have to see what happens....
post #33 of 370
Awesome post.

But I take issue with your claim that:
Quote:
a lot of this boils down to whether you were originally a PC gamer or a console gamer.

I don't think of myself as one or the other, and I don't think most of us who began gaming when you did ever thought of it that way. Like you, I began gaming as a kid back in the late 70s/early 80s. But back then, as now, there was no single dominant form for gaming. There were arcades, Pong machines, Atari consoles, handheld devices, and a bunch of other weird things that most folks don't remember. And as the '80s rolled on, I remember gaming on a friend's fancy computers, playing text games like Zork, playing bizarre games on the Commodore 64, and later playing text adventures by Sierra (Hero's Quest, Space Quest, etc.). I always had at least one console around, but gaming has always been a varied thing. And it wasn't until the '90s that I could afford my own PC to mess around with. But even then, I was always gaming on a lot of different things. I just like games.

But the industry changes. I think that the heyday of traditional consoles is drawing to an end. And I got soured to a lot of the crap that the console manufacturers did. The winding down of this generation signals some major transformations. I don't think consoles will die outright anytime soon, but I don't think they'll reclaim their once dominant role in the market. I'm interested to see what they'll announce this year, but I'm much more excited to see the games themselves than the hardware.
post #34 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by feedthemachine View Post

Been with MS since the launch of the Xbox ,,got a 360 at launch and that sucker lasted 5 years before RROD took it down ...Kinect was cool for a week or so then i went back to gears ,,my kids love kinect though...
I will continue to play the 360 and get gears judgment and play that till the new box ..Like others have said ,,time is a major issue ,4 kids see to that..I play on Friday and Saturday nights ....

I used to love playing soldier of Fortune on my desktop but the thing that always brought me back to consoles was wireless controllers ,sitting back on the couch,feet up,and playing on 50+ screens ,just relaxing ..

You can do this on the PC now too. GPUs come with HDMI outputs and Xbox 360 controller support is built-in to a lot of games. I'm playing through Assassins Creed 3 and Far Cry 3 right now on PC with my controller, it's just like a console except easier to get into (no discs!) and better graphics. I don't even have a computer desk in my house.

I just want a good experience. I had a good PC in 2006 - GeForce 7800, Athlon 64 X2 - but the 360 experience was better, so I stuck with that. By last year I was playing a bunch of games on my 360 and noticed the framerates were lousy, the textures blurry, etc., and there was an easy way to resolve that so I did.

If the consoles come out and have a superior experience to what's on the PC, I'll move to that. We'll just have to see what happens.
post #35 of 370
I'm mostly gaming on PCs now for the superior graphics but I'll get the consoles for the console exclusives like Uncharted (or anything Naughty Dog does).
post #36 of 370
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

If the consoles come out and have a superior experience to what's on the PC, I'll move to that.


The big advantage of the consoles games, early on, is going to be the fact that the game was targeted to a specific spec, and a specific machine. If you remember when the 360 first came out, it was doing things that we just weren't seeing anywhere, including PC. The graphics of the first NBA 2K game on 360 for example, with the realistic characters and the sweat, etc, etc. Remember the graphics from the first Fight Night ? The consoles will initially have that jump, mainly because development teams were working specifically with a console in mind, and trying to get that first game under their belts. Of course, when Oblivion came out in 2006, it got better on PC pretty fast, but needed a bunch of patches before it ran better than the 360 version. There are also going to be TONS of exclusives, by default. Sure, a bunch of these games will eventually end up on PC, but there could be a significant delay, and you have to wonder about the port.

Two years later, the quality of the PC should surge past the consoles again, but I think consoles will have the advantage, if only for a year or two. It won't be a "true" advantage, instead, it will be more of an advantage by default. The consoles will have the best content, but it won't having anything to do with PC's lacking any horsepower.
post #37 of 370
meh, consoles have become little more than a VolksPC. Not that there's anything wrong with that, except they've been clogging up the fast lane.
post #38 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post


Two years later, the quality of the PC should surge past the consoles again, but I think consoles will have the advantage, if only for a year or two.
.

If you're saying this from a visual standpoint, you can put together a PC now that can out-horsepower what the 720/Ps4 will be offering( of course, you'll be paying a pretty penny for it.). The specs for these new consoles have likely been finalized for some time if they're making a 2013 launch date, and the next gen of video cards is coming out this summer I believe. Even now, is either upcoming system likely to beat a rig consisting of an i53570k, Asrock z77 extreme, dual GTX 680's and 16 gig of RAM?

One major advantage on the PC side is that even paying more for the hardware, the software is so cheap, especially with steam sales.
post #39 of 370
Even now, is either upcoming system likely to beat a rig consisting of a quad-core, gtx660 and 4 gig of RAM?

Fixed.
post #40 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post

If you're saying this from a visual standpoint, you can put together a PC now that can out-horsepower what the 720/Ps4 will be offering( of course, you'll be paying a pretty penny for it.). The specs for these new consoles have likely been finalized for some time if they're making a 2013 launch date, and the next gen of video cards is coming out this summer I believe. Even now, is either upcoming system likely to beat a rig consisting of an i53570k, Asrock z77 extreme, dual GTX 680's and 16 gig of RAM?

The question is, will software take advantage of that extra hardware? One big thing that pushed me towards PC is that games started going beyond what the 360 could do. BF3 on PC is way better, Planetside 2 just cannot be done on console at all. I didn't want to spend a thousand dollars (or more for what you describe) just to play console games in high-res.

So it's not just about visuals, especially if the new consoles are better with 1080p - I'm comparing my 1080p PC with my 1080p console.

The next PS4 will probably have Planetside 2 as a launch game, PC developers need to go beyond that.
post #41 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by macks View Post

Even now, is either upcoming system likely to beat a rig consisting of a quad-core, gtx660 and 4 gig of RAM?

Fixed.

A console with quad-core, GTX 660, and 4 gigs of RAM will outperform a similar PC due to overhead.

You need a PC far more powerful than a 360 to run, say, Far Cry 3 at 360 like settings.
post #42 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

The question is, will software take advantage of that extra hardware? One big thing that pushed me towards PC is that games started going beyond what the 360 could do. BF3 on PC is way better, Planetside 2 just cannot be done on console at all. I didn't want to spend a thousand dollars (or more for what you describe) just to play console games in high-res.

So it's not just about visuals, especially if the new consoles are better with 1080p - I'm comparing my 1080p PC with my 1080p console.

The next PS4 will probably have Planetside 2 as a launch game, PC developers need to go beyond that.

There is a 1080p console?

Games have been beyond what the 360 can do since it launched. I'm sure the next generation will support 4k but few if any games will be released with that resolution. Hopefully the next-gen will do away with 720p/30fps once and for all.
post #43 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

The question is, will software take advantage of that extra hardware?

Games specifically for PC or with PC as the lead platform, I'd imagine so. Consoles game makers always have to appease the common denominator; how many multiplat console games were restricted this gen because of Microsoft sticking with the DVD format( and the 360 was lead platform on a number of occasions)?

The point made earlier, is that the next consoles will probably outpace current gaming PCs. No, you can put together a killer rig( and yes, it will cost you) that's all but guaranteed to knock the socks off the next console offerings. The next xbox/PS have to meet a certain pricing target to appeal to the masses so there's a limit to how much power can reasonably be placed under the hood, whereas gaming pcs can be customized to the consumer's tastes and budget so there's much less of a ceiling. Consoles having closed hardware basically means any new system has an extremely small window to be even 'comparable' horsepower-wise to current gaming rigs, let alone anything you can build a year from now.
Edited by dragonyeuw - 1/22/13 at 9:35am
post #44 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post

Games specifically for PC or with PC as the lead platform, I'd imagine so. Consoles game makers always have to appease the common denominator; how many multiplat console games were restricted this gen because of Microsoft sticking with the DVD format( and the 360 was lead platform on a number of occasions)?

Most games will go PC+console for the forseeable future, so consoles will remain a factor in design. There aren't many "big" PC-only titles. Every once in a while we get lucky where a game was obviously designed for PC and then shoehorned into console (BF3, Dragon Age 1), but usually not.

Most PC exclusives are low-end titles from small studios and/or niche titles. Strategy games, ArmA, Chivalry, stuff like that. It's not taxing the hardware. I don't need a fancy PC to play Starcraft 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post

Consoles having closed hardware basically means any new system has an extremely small window to be even 'comparable' horsepower-wise to current gaming rigs, let alone anything you can build a year from now.

Right, but just to reiterate, I want games to take advantage of that. Right now, I can buy a game on console that runs at 720p and 30fps with low IQ. Or I can buy that on PC and get 1080p, 60fps, and great IQ. That's a big enough difference to me. But if the next round of games are 1080p on console with good IQ, then PC needs to do more than just run the games at slightly higher framerates and slightly better IQ to get me to spend the hundreds of extra dollars.
post #45 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Most games will go PC+console for the forseeable future, so consoles will remain a factor in design. There aren't many "big" PC-only titles. Every once in a while we get lucky where a game was obviously designed for PC and then shoehorned into console (BF3, Dragon Age 1), but usually not.

Most PC exclusives are low-end titles from small studios and/or niche titles. Strategy games, ArmA, Chivalry, stuff like that. It's not taxing the hardware. I don't need a fancy PC to play Starcraft 2.
Right, but just to reiterate, I want games to take advantage of that. Right now, I can buy a game on console that runs at 720p and 30fps with low IQ. Or I can buy that on PC and get 1080p, 60fps, and great IQ. That's a big enough difference to me. But if the next round of games are 1080p on console with good IQ, then PC needs to do more than just run the games at slightly higher framerates and slightly better IQ to get me to spend the hundreds of extra dollars.

Fair enough, but my point earlier wasn't whether the software can take advantage of the hardware. I was simply saying, in response to Anthony, that you can build a PC right now that will likely out-horsepower the next gen systems. Whether the software is there to take advantage is another argument and not one I was really speaking to before.

My question to you is, if the next round of consoles is able to give us 1080/60fps and solid IQ, what are you hoping to see on the PC side of things that's several notches above?
Edited by dragonyeuw - 1/22/13 at 11:24am
post #46 of 370
Bleeding edge consoles have resulted in two things in the past. Loss of market share due to high costs or red ring of death. Both have cost the manufacturers billions. There's fun and games, and then there is the bottom line. If I were a betting man, I'd have to go with the latter.
post #47 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post


My question to you is, if the next round of consoles is able to give us 1080/60fps and solid IQ, what are you hoping to see on the PC side of things that's several notches above?

I can't say for sure, outside of the usual (better/more/bigger/etc.). I'd like to see more experimentation on the peripheral side, like Occulus Rift or other peripherals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurkor View Post

Bleeding edge consoles have resulted in two things in the past. Loss of market share due to high costs or red ring of death. Both have cost the manufacturers billions. There's fun and games, and then there is the bottom line. If I were a betting man, I'd have to go with the latter.

These consoles will not be bleeding edge. The 360 was basically late-2005/early-2006 hardware being released in late-2005. These consoles are more like mid-to-late 2012 hardware being released in late-2013.
post #48 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post

My question to you is, if the next round of consoles is able to give us 1080/60fps and solid IQ, what are you hoping to see on the PC side of things that's several notches above?

Since we are in the HTPC gaming forum, I will answer this with: I already have a htpc, the only thing extra I'm buying is a video card($400 video card or $400 xbox, hmm)...

Also: PC games are generally cheaper

Also: No RROD. Just BSOD.

Also: Noisy HTPC, I change a fan. Noisy xbox, wait 2 years and buy our new and improved xbox.

Also: With Steam I'm supporting Valve with distribution fees instead of M$ or $ony.
post #49 of 370
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post

you can build a PC right now that will likely out-horsepower the next gen systems. Whether the software is there to take advantage is another argument and not one I was really speaking to before.


It's my personal belief that the 360 looked better than current PC games at that same time. There were certain games (Oblivion), that were definitely better on PC, but in most of the categories the 360 was better. It didn't last very long, but it did happen. The same thing happened with the PS3. When Motorstorm first hit, and the first Uncharted, at that time, those games were arguably more impressive than what was going on with the PC. Yeah, Crysis, Crysis, Crysis. One game.

It's not a question of whether PC's are ALWAYS going to be stronger than consoles. We know this. This has been proven time and time again. Of course, another thing has been proven time and time again. That when new consoles first launch (assuming they were designed to be powerful), for whatever brief moment, they reign supreme. I know it's not because they are more powerful. It's because they have all the top development teams specifically trying to create a game specifically for them. How good did GTA 4 first play on the PC ? Pretty crappy right ? It's because it was designed with consoles in mind. The consoles are going to have exclusive games like the PS3 had Motorstorm and Uncharted. Maybe Motorstorm on the PS3, could have been just as good had it been designed for the PC, but we'll never know. I was playing the Japanese import of Motorstorm during Xmas 2006, and let me tell you, the PC couldn't touch that game, for that brief moment in time. It was pure state of the art.

Now, is it because the PS3 was some kind of technological marvel ? No. It was because the developers had been working specifically to the PS3 spec, trying to tap as much power out of the machine as possible, and they came out with a game that was absolutely awesome for it's release window. (at least for me getting it about 4 or 5 months early smile.gif )
post #50 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

It's my personal belief that the 360 looked better than current PC games at that same time. There were certain games (Oblivion), that were definitely better on PC, but in most of the categories the 360 was better. It didn't last very long, but it did happen.


I'm not sure exactly what games you're referring to, when the 360 launch I didn't have a gaming capable PC. I would imagine early 360 games looking better than their PC counterparts had more to do with those games being optimized for 360 hardware, as opposed to any technical superiority over the high end PC components at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

The same thing happened with the PS3. When Motorstorm first hit, and the first Uncharted, at that time, those games were arguably more impressive than what was going on with the PC. Yeah, Crysis, Crysis, Crysis. One game.

Another example of a game being optimized for the hardware. Motorstorm was one of the PS3's early visual showcases. Crysis is just one example of the kind of visuals possible when a developer actually creates a PC game ground up that taxes PC components. 5 years later, few games are capable of matching Crysis when run on a capable rig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

It's not a question of whether PC's are ALWAYS going to be stronger than consoles. We know this. This has been proven time and time again. Of course, another thing has been proven time and time again. That when new consoles first launch (assuming they were designed to be powerful), for whatever brief moment, they reign supreme. I know it's not because they are more powerful. It's because they have all the top development teams specifically trying to create a game specifically for them. How good did GTA 4 first play on the PC ? Pretty crappy right ?

I can't speak to GTA 4 as I never played it( I haven't been interested in that series since Vice City) but I'm guessing consoles were lead platform? We all agree that PCs will always be more capable, but as number1laing alluded to, not many PC developers create games that take advantage of that extra horsepower. But when they do, like Metro 2033, Battlefield 3, Crysis, the difference between the PC and console versions is quite striking on a powerful rig.
post #51 of 370
I started PC gaming 2 years ago when I finally built a really nice gaming rig (before this I was a console gamer for years having bought darn near ALL consoles since the Atari 5600). Having a 360, PS3 & Gaming Rig I started buying the majority of my games from Steam when I learned of the Steam Summer Sale in 2011. Since 2011 I have used my PS3 for 1 game (Uncharted 3) & my PS3 is now just a Blu-Ray Player. I have used my 360 twice for games (Gears 3 & Halo 4). Since I can use a 360 Wireless Controller I can play all my PC games on my couch on my 60" HDTV.

I have no reason whatsoever to get either the PS4 or 720. I will just use that console money to get a newer GPU (I now have a Sapphire 7850 2GB OC Edition) in a year or 2. I also have a Wii U, PS Vita & 3DS that will keep me more than engaged in the Next Gen of gaming. I now buy my PC games 3X a year with Steam Sales. I have a huge backlog now to catch up on.
post #52 of 370
I spent 2500 on PC parts in 2005, and slowly upgraded parts till the present and that system is still kicking a$$. Today I bought the first major upgrade components in several years, a new i5 cpu/Asus intel 77 m.board/16G ram. It ran $600 with a power supply for my second desktop, and an upgrade cooling fan set. If this one can last 7 years like the first build than that is WAY better than any console could ever be.

My computers have to run triple duty, they are HT/music servers, gaming machines, photo editors, accountants, and communication devices. For gaming specifically, I love the keyboard, and can not ever seem to get used to using a controller. I will be a PC man until the PC is dead. Screw Playstation and Xbox. I agree with the previous poster who said he hadn't seen a console that interested him since the SNES. I have had many consoles, and hated them all except Atari and NES. But in the early 80's there was no PC that could compete in any way. I had the MAC, and a Commodore, but since 1990 or so, it has been PC's all the way.
post #53 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by taskman View Post

I think the PS2 was the last time I did a launch purchase. I was too invested in PC gaming to divert funds initially for the 360 or the PS3. I ended up getting a 360 in 2007 and a PS3 in 2011. I can look back and regret not getting the PS3 sooner, its exclusive games are very good and I still haven't caught up which is really the hardest part. I can go buy all three consoles and keep my PC gaming going but how do you keep up with game releases?

I'm a long time hardcore gamer and the releases are so rapid fire now. They all come in the same month, and so your left trying to keep up with friends, work, family. I haven't even touched Skyrim yet! I have an un-opened copy of Final Fantasy X-2 from a year ago (I only play for the combat), and I haven't had a chance to play Arkham City.

I like the simplicity of consoles, you press a power button and the game starts and you sit back and relax. With PC gaming, until Steam became much more popular it was a lot of tweaking and driver updates, hardware updates, etc. Yeah the graphics are amazing but there is a tradeoff of simplicity. I know that sounds lazy but after building custom gaming PCs for 16 years now, I'm a little tired. Plus keeping the HTPC running smoothly for the HT room.

With all that said, I think I will continue what has been a slow migration back to PC from consoles. I only recently got back to Steam, (X-com Unknown) and its very impressive. With Big Picture mode it takes a lot of the work out of getting my Xbox Controller to work with PC games. I currently use xpadder. My PC while being 4 years old holds its own just fine, thanks to large investments in multi-core CPU and GPU back in 2008. I think I will pick up at least one console, and continue buying games on Steam or GOG going forward.

One last item I want to mention is this generation I think will be very major. One of the major reasons PC gaming has made such leaps in the past few years is accessibility due to much more powerful CPUs without the high cost. Both the 360 and the PS3 came out just as the concept of multi-core CPUs were hitting the enterprise and consumer industry. Yes, the PS3 is multi-core but not at the same level of performance. I expect that the performance is going to be significant on these consoles despite the fact that consoles tend to have to lock the approved hardware a few years before launch. What if one of these consoles plugs into Steam? PS3 has limited but functional access to Steam today.

I have the same problem, I get games but then can't keep up with all the titles I want to play.

PLAY ARKHAM CITY....DO IT RIGHT NOW...that game is awesome sauce. Well deserving of GOTY.
Final Fantasy X-2...meh, combat is okay but the story is hard to watch and listen too. Very J-pop. FFX is one of my favorite games of all time and I don't think I've liked another FF title since then.
Skyrim....AWESOME but play arkham first since skyrim is the biggest time suck I've ever encountered. I have over 100 hours on my first playthrough and I've barely scratched the surface of all the stuff there is to do.

I'm mainly a console guy, always played console games since I was 8yrs old with NES. My current computer (i5 2500k, gtx 560ti) is my first computer that I can game on and I love certain games on it. Skyrim NEEDS to be played on a PC, without the PC you don't get access to the thousands of mods which do everything from obscene pixels count for simple pillows in the game, adding 100+ new spells to the game. Hey I just used creation kit to make my very first custom follower. Love the skyrim mod community...hey some guy made hearthfire before bethesda released theirs...and the mod is free.

I will still want to have a console because they tend to have more action titles but I have a new found appreciation for pc gaming. I can't wait till DmC comes out, on the ps3 and xbox360 it is capped at 30FPS, on the pc it will run at however many frames your computer can handle.

Oh and just a thought, comparing a 300 dollar console like the current PS3 with a rig that has a 300 dollar cpu and 500 gpu with a total cost of over 2K....not exactly a fair comparison. I don't think console's will die any time real soon, you will still see ridiculous lines of people overpaying for a new system that will mostly likely break very shortly. The crowd here at AVS is a bit more tech savy than the average person who would rather just put a disc in a machine and hit start than spend time in configuration menus and bios screens.
Edited by wyen78 - 1/23/13 at 5:20pm
post #54 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

I think a lot of this boils down to whether you were originally a PC gamer or a console gamer.

Depending upon your definition of a PC, it's possible I was playing PC games before the NES came out. wink.gif In all seriousness, the only consoles that I have not owned (that I can think of) are the Nintendo Virtual Boy, SEGA Gamegear, CDi, and the DS line of Gameboys. Very few were presents from parents, most I bought for myself once I started earning money of my own. I went through a bit of a collection phase which I eventually outgrew in favor of emulation for my favorites. I have owned or do still own: Atari 2600, Atari Jaguar, C64, NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, Gameboy, GBA, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS, PS2, PS3, Genesis, 32X, SEGA CD, Nomad, Saturn, Dreamcast, even the 3DO.

Standouts from my memories of console gaming include Mario series/Ninja Gaiden series (NES), Streets of Rage series (Genesis), Road Rash (3DO), Panzer Dragoon Zwei (Saturn), GoldenEye/Vigilante8/Perfect Dark/Wrestlemania 2000 (N64), Gran Turismo series (PS1-3), Halo/Fable/Ninja Gaiden (Xbox), and Fallout 3/Borderlands/Netflix (Xbox 360). LOL

The whole time, though, I was playing a lot of PC games and building/upgrading computers. Commander Keen, Crystal Caves, Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, TIE Fighter, Freespace, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, C&C, SimCity, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, CS, Elder Scrolls, WoW, Fallout, Halo (PC port), and tons of other stuff leading to present day...

I've had waves where a particular game sucks me in and I neglect the other for an extended period. Probably the longest period of non-PC gaming was my Xbox phase during my first marriage. Halo LAN parties, perfecting my Dragon Sword techniques in Ninja Gaiden, and being OP in Fable dominated most of my gaming. I also couldn't afford to upgrade my PC, so I missed out on a few prime PC games at launch. Xbox Live - at first - was an amazing unifying experience.

IMO, console gaming used to be the simple alternative to PC, but I think that the console DLC and DRM implementations have tainted the experience for me. As EVERYTHING moves toward the digital distribution model, Steam is the only one that gives me nearly everything I want. PSN is too unreliable, Live is too restrictive and costly, GOG doesn't have the community, but Steam does everything really ****ing well. Deep down I know that I should try to buy as many games as possible on GOG, but Steam also has my loyalty at this point.

TL:DR
To answer the original question: I just upgraded my gaming PC and my (second) wife's gaming laptop - we are "doubling down" on PC. Even IF the new consoles were magically able to match modern PCs at 1080p, or even do 4K with reduced detail, I still don't like their distribution model and don't want to support it.
post #55 of 370
I played 'Decathlon' on an IBM computer in 1982 - can anybody beat that or am I the top dinosaur in that regard? That's also about when I got an Atari 2600 so I guess I've been switching from PC to console and back for 30 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

Depending upon your definition of a PC, it's possible I was playing PC games before the NES came out. wink.gif

Edited by imagic - 1/24/13 at 12:13pm
post #56 of 370
I built an over the top gaming PC last year. It...with Steam...XBox 360...PS 3 satisfy all my curiosity about gaming. I definitely won't buy a new console anytime soon. Maybe 2016 or 2017 I'll try one. After they have built a decent inventory of games. But I still have way too many XBox 360 titles and a ton of PS3 games that I want to buy first. And they will only get dirt cheaper after launch of the new consoles. Heck...I would actually buy a new, reduced cost XBox 360 or PS3 if my existing ones broke before I purchased a NexGen console...unless the NexGen had backwards compatibility. I really think the new consoles have a high probability of tanking early. I would be terrified if I was MS and Sony. MS really doesn't even need a NextGen console IMO. It could just accelerate XBL, XBox OS on a SSD and XBox App integration with the PC...Surface...Windows 8...and Xphone (hint...hint), while using the XBox 360 as their core Console spine for game developers. My Geeked up PC with Steam scratches all of my NexGen itch right now. And will remain so because of its versatility and upgradability capacity. I have been a PC gamer all of my life. And have always preferred it. Despite my infatuation with consoles (which I still love too).
post #57 of 370
Today I bought Batman Arkham City GOTY - it was on sale for $10 Through EA's Origin. I started playing in 3D on my PC and wow is all I can say. The 3D quality is amazing, never before have I experienced a game that looks so great, through and through. I can't see how a console could be better, I really can't.
post #58 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I played 'Decathlon' on an IBM computer in 1982 - can anybody beat that or am I the top dinosaur in that regard? That's also about when I got an Atari 2600 so I guess I've been switching from PC to console and back for 30 years.

I got ya smile.gif Bards tale on apple II, that was actually mid 80's i think... but On UNIX we in 1980 we played networked games on a Digital VAX server. Larn, Phantasia, Rogue, Nethack, and more. Those were the days.

I remember logging in from home with a 2400 baud smile.gif Mom screaming up the stairs 'when r u gonna be off the phone?' I reply 'after I kill a couple hundred more lemmings and find the stairs'
Edited by 3rdHerd - 1/24/13 at 3:59pm
post #59 of 370
Thread Starter 
You know, I was just thinking.... What if Sony and Microsoft make demands on 3rd parties to delay the PC versions of their huge console games ? For example, let's say that at e3, Fallout 4 is announced for the Xbox Infinity and the PS4 and the PC. Only thing is, the PC version won't be out in 2013 like the PS4 and Xbox Infinity version. Maybe it will be delayed for 90 days or so, as a courtesy to Microsoft and Sony. Maybe the same thing will happen with other huge next gen games coming to the new systems.


Were there any delays like that back in 2005 and 2006 ?
post #60 of 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

You know, I was just thinking.... What if Sony and Microsoft make demands on 3rd parties to delay the PC versions of their huge console games?
MS and Sony don't have that much leverage over third parties. If anything, the balance of power works in the other direction. And with the console market rapidly shrinking (and the distinct probability that it won't bounce back), that's even more true. MS will continue to focus on a few marquee series (CoD) for timed exclusives and whatnot.

Otherwise, we can expect the same delays that always accompany many PC releases of multiplatform titles. Delays of PC versions have more to do with console release windows being much more time sensitive than PC releases. The console market is much more seasonal than the PC market, so developers push hard to meet console release deadlines. PC release dates tend to be more flexible.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Will you head back to the consoles, or double down on PC gaming ? Fall 2013 - The Great Decision