5 reasons console gaming>PC gaming

[shadowfox]

I reckon RPGs go both ways

 

[Solidus]

Right now I still maintain:

RTS, FPS, mouse-click-quests/MMO's = PC

Racing, Fighting, RPG's, Adventure, Simulators = Console

Agreed!
At least FPS's are still manageable with a controller these days but RTS and MMO is just so much better on a KB

 

[shibobo]

The potential for RTS games to work well on specifically the PS3 is there in my opinion. You can plug in any usb mouse and keyboard, even wireless ones, and it works perfectly. The processor of the PS3 is very powerful and RTS games put a lot of strain on the CPU right? Add to that the big Sony Bravia that you can play it on... Really epic stuff.

EDIT: Is there a different reason as to why it can't work on consoles or is it only the mouse and keyboard issue? Games like Unreal 3 support mouse and keyboard and it works really well.

 

[Jan]

RTS, FPS, mouse-click-quests/MMO's = PC

As much as I agree with you, I fear the PC FPS is going the way of the dodo. I have not seen an FPS (or any other shooter, for that matter) released in recent years that has not had its user interface dumbed down and key bindings stripped down, and been ported just like that over to PC. It happened with Wolfenstein, MW2, and Borderlands off the top of my head.

Basically all the PC has going for it when it comes to AAA shooters is better graphics (DX11), and possibly PhysX (if you've got the rig to handle both the graphics and the PhysX on the video card(s) of course).

So the FPS might actually play better on a PC, but the FPS is no longer being made *for* PC.

For your entertainment, a poem I published on Hellforge to this effect earlier this year.

 

[OmegaFenix]

As much as I agree with you, I fear the PC FPS is going the way of the dodo. I have not seen an FPS (or any other shooter, for that matter) released in recent years that has not had its user interface dumbed down and key bindings stripped down, and been ported just like that over to PC. It happened with Wolfenstein, MW2, and Borderlands off the top of my head.

Basically all the PC has going for it when it comes to AAA shooters is better graphics (DX11), and possibly PhysX (if you've got the rig to handle both the graphics and the PhysX on the video card(s) of course).

So the FPS might actually play better on a PC, but the FPS is no longer being made *for* PC.

For your entertainment, a poem I published on Hellforge to this effect earlier this year.

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R games where still PC FPSes made for PC. But yes it is a you say.

 

[Jan]

I don't know if this has already been covered in this thread (a quick search for 'DRM' yielded no results), but I have a quibble with Tarryn's statement of there being 'no DRM' on consoles (end the editors concession of the point). This also affects the points made in number 4 of Tarryn's arguments.

I have it on pretty good authority (not being a console owner myself) that some console titles are resorting to Day-0 DLC. Some even go so far as to exclude major portions of the game until you download it over Xbox Live. The irony is that this one particular game (Forza Motorsport, I believe) got sold in South Africa without the unlock code in the box because we strictly don't have access to Xbox Live. If that isn't DRM interfering with a user's gameplay then I clearly don't know what is.

The Day-0 DLC point ties in with the second-hand market point thanks to EA's (and other publishers') "project $10" initiative to get some cash off of second-hand sales. The same system is in place for console versions of games published by EA (Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2), no?

 

[Azimuth]

I don't know if this has already been covered in this thread (a quick search for 'DRM' yielded no results), but I have a quibble with Tarryn's statement of there being 'no DRM' on consoles (end the editors concession of the point). This also affects the points made in number 4 of Tarryn's arguments.

I have it on pretty good authority (not being a console owner myself) that some console titles are resorting to Day-0 DLC. Some even go so far as to exclude major portions of the game until you download it over Xbox Live. The irony is that this one particular game (Forza Motorsport, I believe) got sold in South Africa without the unlock code in the box because we strictly don't have access to Xbox Live. If that isn't DRM interfering with a user's gameplay then I clearly don't know what is.

The Day-0 DLC point ties in with the second-hand market point thanks to EA's (and other publishers') "project $10" initiative to get some cash off of second-hand sales. The same system is in place for console versions of games published by EA (Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2), no?

I think you've misunderstood something here. The "Day-0" DLC you're referring to is bonus content. It's not required for play. In the case of Forza, this was a bonus pack of 10 additional cars. This sort of DLC is mostly geared towards selling games new over secondhand, since these codes are strictly single use. Mass Effect 2 introduced a similar scheme with the Cerberus Network stuff (although this has been available locally without any problems).

 

[Jan]

The "Day-0" DLC you're referring to is bonus content. It's not required for play. In the case of Forza, this was a bonus pack of 10 additional cars.

That's one way to look at it, I guess. I see it as doubling as a DRM-mechanism. People that pirate the game by simply getting a copy of the disc won't be able to access that content either. Of course, it doesn't take long for copies of the game with Day-0 DLC and all to make it's way to the Internet at large, but for an initial short period (and for short periods after the release of additional DLC in the case of the Cerberus network) there's real incentive to legal copies of the game.

The guy I chatted to about the Forza issue felt really hard-done-by. It was content that he was promised access to and then denied because of where he lived -- no other reason. Are you sure the Forza DLC didn't include additional tracks? I seem to recall that being mentioned.

In the case of the Cerberus Network and Dragon Age DLC I fully agree -- you don't need those to fully enjoy the games. I'd go so far as to say that they're not really worth the $10 if you're going to buy the game second-hand.

 

[Azimuth]

That's one way to look at it, I guess. I see it as doubling as a DRM-mechanism. People that pirate the game by simply getting a copy of the disc won't be able to access that content either. Of course, it doesn't take long for copies of the game with Day-0 DLC and all to make it's way to the Internet at large, but for an initial short period (and for short periods after the release of additional DLC in the case of the Cerberus network) there's real incentive to legal copies of the game.

While it's reasonable enough to see this as a sort of DRM mechanism, it's really nothing like PC DRM schemes that, for example, require always-on internet connectivity. There's also no issue with serial keys and other registrations, which is partly why there's not much in the way of a secondhand market for PC games, where licences are typically non-transferrable, nor any rubbish like limited installations or other restrictive measures. In short, while consoles might manage rights in their own way, it's not really inconvenient to the user. The same is not true for PCs.

The guy I chatted to about the Forza issue felt really hard-done-by. It was content that he was promised access to and then denied because of where he lived -- no other reason. Are you sure the Forza DLC didn't include additional tracks? I seem to recall that being mentioned.

There was a similar issue a while back when Gears of War 2 was released, and which I was personally very upset about. But this isn't a matter of DRM - at least not in the context I was writing about - but rather the matter that Xbox LIVE is not officially available in SA and the bonus codes being nixed from boxes because of this. I guess the reasoning here is that Microsoft can't provide support for a product that's not available - in this case, the LIVE service is not available in SA, so LIVE content shouldn't be distributed. It's retarded, but this is just business. Regardless, it's not like anything was taken away from the game.

In the case of the Cerberus Network and Dragon Age DLC I fully agree -- you don't need those to fully enjoy the games. I'd go so far as to say that they're not really worth the $10 if you're going to buy the game second-hand.

Yeah, I agree. It's just nice bonus junk.

 

[Voicy]

The potential for RTS games to work well on specifically the PS3 is there in my opinion. You can plug in any usb mouse and keyboard, even wireless ones, and it works perfectly. The processor of the PS3 is very powerful and RTS games put a lot of strain on the CPU right? Add to that the big Sony Bravia that you can play it on... Really epic stuff.

EDIT: Is there a different reason as to why it can't work on consoles or is it only the mouse and keyboard issue? Games like Unreal 3 support mouse and keyboard and it works really well.

Effectively turning it into a pc ... just as much as using a joypad on a pc effectively turns it into a console.

I'm referring to legacy K/B+Mouse VS controller setups, but yeah I hear what you're saying...

 

[Raven Gold]

As much as I agree with you, I fear the PC FPS is going the way of the dodo. I have not seen an FPS (or any other shooter, for that matter) released in recent years that has not had its user interface dumbed down and key bindings stripped down, and been ported just like that over to PC. It happened with Wolfenstein, MW2, and Borderlands off the top of my head.

Basically all the PC has going for it when it comes to AAA shooters is better graphics (DX11), and possibly PhysX (if you've got the rig to handle both the graphics and the PhysX on the video card(s) of course).

So the FPS might actually play better on a PC, but the FPS is no longer being made *for* PC.

For your entertainment, a poem I published on Hellforge to this effect earlier this year.

And this is why I'm going to buy less and less games and more and more games are going to the torrent list. I refuse to pay for anything that has been striped down for what ever reason. There is no excuse to take away controll features on a PC and replace it with shiny retarded graphics. If it's cost your woried about, it should be cheaper and easier to make your controlls more advanced than to increase the graphics requirements. This is the bullshit I won't stand for, nor should anybody else if they really loved games.

If this wasn't the case, I'de also be the proud owner of a console or seven, but I'm not going to associate myself with whats bringing down my way of life.

 

[OmegaFenix]

And this is why I'm going to buy less and less games and more and more games are going to the torrent list. I refuse to pay for anything that has been striped down for what ever reason. There is no excuse to take away controll features on a PC and replace it with shiny retarded graphics. If it's cost your woried about, it should be cheaper and easier to make your controlls more advanced than to increase the graphics requirements. This is the bullshit I won't stand for, nor should anybody else if they really loved games.

Oh you wont stand for it well since YOU wont stand for it im sure it will change.

 

[Jan]

While it's reasonable enough to see this as a sort of DRM mechanism, it's really nothing like PC DRM schemes that, for example, require always-on internet connectivity. [...] nor any rubbish like limited installations or other restrictive measures. In short, while consoles might manage rights in their own way, it's not really inconvenient to the user. The same is not true for PCs.

This I will concede for the most part... My quibble is really with the phrase "No DRM." That said, there is no way I'm supporting this new-fangled "always online" DRM schemes being peddled, no matter how good the game is that's attached to it. Just like I didn't play MW2 because of their decisions around the PC version of the game, so I won't be playing AC2 or C&C4.

There's also no issue with serial keys and other registrations, which is partly why there's not much in the way of a secondhand market for PC games, where licences are typically non-transferrable,

Only when it comes to games bought through Steam or that make use of Steamworks (FEAR2, DOW2, and most recently, Metro 2033). I believe non-transferrable licenses have become "typical" only because Steam has become the poster-boy of the "alternative delivery method" for PC games.

That said, I think actual PC games retailers (not Cash Converters, etc.) stopped accepting returns on PC games when piracy on the platform became rife. If memory serves, the game retailer-based second-hand market (a la BT Games) only kicked off after that, so PC games were never under consideration when the business model became popular.

 

[Jan]

Oh you wont stand for it well since YOU wont stand for it im sure it will change.

If the individual doesn't make a stand and vote with his/her wallet then by definition the collective can't. Once enough individuals have decided to not support something, the bean counters might finally listen. If all individuals hide behind the attitude of "little old me can't make a difference, so why bother," then there is no hope for opposition people will listen to.

That said, I can't say I agree with the principle of downloading the game instead of paying for it. If you're playing the game you're supporting it in some way.

And *that* said... Bring me my torch and pitchfork!

 

[Azimuth]

This I will concede for the most part... My quibble is really with the phrase "No DRM." That said, there is no way I'm supporting this new-fangled "always online" DRM schemes being peddled, no matter how good the game is that's attached to it. Just like I didn't play MW2 because of their decisions around the PC version of the game, so I won't be playing AC2 or C&C4.

Look, I totally see what you're getting at, and I don't think you're entirely wrong about it. But when I wrote "No DRM", I specifically had DRM schemes like AC2's in mind. What you're describing here is much more abstracted.

Only when it comes to games bought through Steam or that make use of Steamworks (FEAR2, DOW2, and most recently, Metro 2033). I believe non-transferrable licenses have become "typical" only because Steam has become the poster-boy of the "alternative delivery method" for PC games.

That said, I think actual PC games retailers (not Cash Converters, etc.) stopped accepting returns on PC games when piracy on the platform became rife. If memory serves, the game retailer-based second-hand market (a la BT Games) only kicked off after that, so PC games were never under consideration when the business model became popular.

Oh, I'm sure that piracy has a lot to do with it. If shops allowed PC game returns, I'd bet a significant (majority?) percentage of returns would have been copied first. I just prefer to avoid the piracy thing in articles, since it invariably invites stupid commentary from a bunch of entitled dickheads.

 

[crazydude]

Here's the way I see it, PC serve 2 very different markets best. I think they work best for people playing peggle, bejeweled, and Barbie adventures, as they can use their 'normal' PCs. PCs are also best for people who want 19 200 x 12 000(not a typo) resolutions and 10 000 frames per second and all sort of fancy effects in there games and physx and all those other nifty things.

Consoles seem to be best for everyone in else 'in between'. The only potential problem I see is that with a PCs everyone can lan together (eventually, once you get past all the system rubbish). I will say that on average in a group of friends, there will be some problem with someone not having the console that the others want to play on. Now as long as you can play with 2 people on one console that's fine though.

 

[Jan]

Oh, I'm sure that piracy has a lot to do with it. If shops allowed PC game returns, I'd bet a significant (majority?) percentage of returns would have been copied first. I just prefer to avoid the piracy thing in articles, since it invariably invites stupid commentary from a bunch of entitled dickheads.

Heh, if I were a web content creator or editor for some sort of "webzine" (ugh) I'd slap that in every article I publish as it invariably leads to 1000+ post comment threads when the argument finally degenerates into the "piracy is *exactly* like stealing" vs. "piracy is *nothing* like stealing" circlejerk.

Full disclosure: I fall in the broader "piracy isn't simple theft" category, but my argument is complicated and most certainly of tl;dr-length .

 

[Raven Gold]

If the individual doesn't make a stand and vote with his/her wallet then by definition the collective can't. Once enough individuals have decided to not support something, the bean counters might finally listen. If all individuals hide behind the attitude of "little old me can't make a difference, so why bother," then there is no hope for opposition people will listen to.

Thanks.

That said, I can't say I agree with the principle of downloading the game instead of paying for it. If you're playing the game you're supporting it in some way.

And *that* said... Bring me my torch and pitchfork!

Put that down unless your going to stab Kotick. I can choose not to buy the game and leave it at that. Sure, thats an impact, a small one, but yes. or I can have a slightly bigger blow by downloading it and than helping to distribute it again. So it's an even bigger loss (Potential?) for the publisher.

 

[OmegaFenix]

If the individual doesn't make a stand and vote with his/her wallet then by definition the collective can't. Once enough individuals have decided to not support something, the bean counters might finally listen. If all individuals hide behind the attitude of "little old me can't make a difference, so why bother," then there is no hope for opposition people will listen to.

That said, I can't say I agree with the principle of downloading the game instead of paying for it. If you're playing the game you're supporting it in some way.

And *that* said... Bring me my torch and pitchfork!

Hewhoshallnotbenamed is a pirate, he says he is against all this DRM and "dumbed down" control schemes but he pirates the game to "stick it to the man". I have a problem with that mind set. As as firmly as he feels about his "right" to play games his way, i feel that pirates are idiots who are hurting the industry they claim to love so much. If its not worth paying for its not worth playing. The END.

 

[Jan]

Sorry for the double-posting everyone, I just find it's friendlier on the eyes if posts stay topical and don't become monolithic replies to every opinion in the thread.

Here's the way I see it, PC serve 2 very different markets best. I think they work best for people playing peggle, bejeweled, and Barbie adventures, as they can use their 'normal' PCs. PCs are also best for people who want 19 200 x 12 000(not a typo) resolutions and 10 000 frames per second and all sort of fancy effects in there games and physx and all those other nifty things.

And what about the folks that play older, undemanding games that are quintessentially hardcore? Specifically DotA (which may or may not fade away with HoN and LoL on the scene) and CS1.6? These games remain popular because they can run on your work-issued laptop (among other reasons), but they certainly don't attract the demographic that play Peggle and Barbie Adventures.