35 ms·

This "PC Master Race" mentality has left a sour taste in my mouth. It is a joke to a few but it is starting to become serious (weather they refer to it as PC M

• chc 12y ago
  Well, it really is technically inferior to a gaming PC. And I say this as somebody who owns several consoles and does not own a gaming PC. In making that choice, I had to accept that I would get less power than a PC user, at least for most of the console's lifespan. I use a console because that's what I'm comfortable with and it lets me play with my friends, not because I want to be at the cutting edge of gaming technology.
  • jfb 12y ago
    There are more axes to gaming quality than simply polygon performance. You have to be specific about what is superior.
    • chc 12y ago
      I really can't name any technological aspect in which consoles are more powerful than a PC. That's kind of the point I was driving at.
      • gknoy 12y ago
        The secret power of consoles is that the hardware doesn't change over the course of the console's life in a significant way. If I buy an XBox 360 on ebay, I know that ANY xbox-360 game will run on it. In contrast, PC gaming is a mess of compatibility questions. If I want to play the new Wolfenstein, or Watch Dogs, or any "new" game, chances are my 2 year old PC will not be able to run it well (unless I spent $$$$ on it, rather than $$). If I want to play a new game with all the dials turned up to 9 (or 11), I basically expect to spend $1200-$1500 on a new PC every two to four years. If I look at OLDER games, it's even worse: Will this game even install? I have a giant library of games which I would love to play, but I can't figure out how to get them to run on a current version of Windows. (Sea Dogs, Starfleet Command 3, etc.) These games are ten years old, and I can't even get the installers to run correctly -- or if I do, the game crashes for other "win 8 >> Win XP" reasons. I would pay money _again_ to be able to play some of these games in a reliable way (and have re-bought things for Steam), but most of the time they're not supported anymore. My Wii will still play Windwaker (11 years old), and I can buy an XBox and any copy of Halo and be pretty confident that it'll run, even if ten years old (assuming the hardware hasn't failed).
        • xyzzyz 12y ago
          I can guarantee that if you spend $1000 on new PC today, you'll be able to run all games at console quality for at least next 3-4 years, almost all in the next five years, and then still most of the games beyond that range. You'll also be able to run any of the thousands of games that have already been released on PC, a feat no console is able to do. I bought my PC 3 years ago for around that much (in country with higher import cost and higher sales tax, so it would cost 700-800 dollars in the US), and I encountered only a single game that refuses to run smoothly at all times (Mirrors Edge).
          • xienze 12y ago
            > I can guarantee that if you spend $1000 on new PC today, you'll be able to run all games at console quality for at least next 3-4 years, almost all in the next five years Or I could spend $400 on a console and play every single available game at "console quality" for the life of the console, which is a good deal longer than 5 years. That, coupled with the fact that console games in general look pretty good, is the reason PC gaming is in something of a decline.
            • redacted 12y ago
              You're missing the point: if you buy a PC that is capable of playing games with console-quality graphics today, you will be able to play games with console quality graphics until consoles become more powerful. The fact that consoles are a fixed target means that multi-platform games almost necessarily include that fixed target as a lower bound. I game (infrequently) on a 2010 MacBook Pro. It has a 512MB GPU, not enough to play new PC-exclusive games by a long shot, but if the game has a Xbox360 or PS3 port then I'm good. Turn everything as low as needed (as close to console quality to be frank) and off I go. Hook up a PS3 controller and my TV and I couldn't tell you the difference - I played Skyrim that way.
              • xienze 12y ago
                > if you buy a PC that is capable of playing games with console-quality graphics today, you will be able to play games with console quality graphics until consoles become more powerful. OK, but it's not economical by any stretch of the imagination. Given the $1000 example above, you can by 2 entire generations of a single console and get halfway to the third for the same amount of money. That'll keep you playing the "latest games" for what, 16 years if you go by the Xbox360's 8 year lifespan per generation? The numbers really don't add up for PCs anymore.
      • ZoFreX 12y ago
        More powerful? No. But they are still better in some ways: * No DRM. I have been burnt several times by PC games on this front. * No viruses or malware to worry about * Far fewer updates to install and in general less maintenance * Warranty - if I build a PC myself and it breaks, I need to fix it (I recognise that for more technical users and/or people with more time, it's a plus that you can fix a PC yourself - but that isn't everyone) * Compatibility. It's hardly rare to run into issues if you try to play a PC game on launch date, and often graphics card driver updates fix some games and break others. * Noise and size (it's hard to make a small quiet and powerful PC on a budget) * Peripherals - there is a standardized set that "just works" for a console. On the PC, maybe half of my Steam library supports my controller out of the box. And one non-technical aspect which isn't a concern for everyone, but is for many: * My friends are all on [XBox Live|PSN] and I want to play with them My stance? I game on PC, PS3, PS2, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS, iPad, and occasionally on an Android phone. They're all great in their own way. I wouldn't say any of them was better than all of the others on all axes I care about - but if pushed to have just one, I would pick the PC.
        • talmir 12y ago
          * No DRM. I have been burnt several times by PC games on this front. True, sometimes drm is an issue. To me drm hasnt been an issue for quite a few years.. I think it was with the last game I bought a hardcopy of. If you are talking about the gaming services everyone has different views on different vendors. It can be argued that the need for the console itself, created by a single manufacturer with sole control, is drm in itself. * No viruses or malware to worry about If you dont click suspicious banners or run spam executables you wont run into viruses (If you are a legit customer, if you download from piratebay or similar you can only blame yourself). I have been an active gamer most of my life (31 years old now) and I think I ran into my last virus back in windows xp. * Far fewer updates to install and in general less maintenance So you live with bugs for longer? Must suck... The awesome thing about pc gaming is that whenever you log on some issue you had in the past might be gone. Updates are there to improve your gaming. If you are talking about your OS, you forget that your computer is not just a game station, it is also a tool. The updates are there to keep things running smoothly. * Warranty - if I build a PC myself and it breaks, I need to fix it (I recognise that for more technical users and/or people with more time, it's a plus that you can fix a PC yourself - but that isn't everyone) If it breaks, call a repair guy. I refer again to my point about the computer not being a dedicated gaming platform. * Compatibility. It's hardly rare to run into issues if you try to play a PC game on launch date, and often graphics card driver updates fix some games and break others. What does launch day have to do with compatibility? I have never suffered not having up to date drivers if a high profile game using some weird functions not covered by previous drivers is about to be released. Again, I am an avid computer gamer. * Noise and size (it's hard to make a small quiet and powerful PC on a budget) No its not. Have you tried? It is cheaper to make a powerful and noisy computer, but silence is not super pricey, ya see. Your little console is partly built with pc components, so you should be able to create an equally powerful machine with the same noise level for just about the same price. * Peripherals - there is a standardized set that "just works" for a console. On the PC, maybe half of my Steam library supports my controller out of the box. Not every game uses a kinekt. Not every game uses a joystick. I have a pretty beat up x-box clone gamepad, a cheap joystick and a track ir at home. Never had any issues with them. For most games I prefer the keyboard tho so this might be a bigger issue for others. And one non-technical aspect which isn't a concern for everyone, but is for many: * My friends are all on [XBox Live|PSN] and I want to play with them And there we get to the meat and potatoes of your post. You game with your friends, all your friends are on other platforms, so you do as well. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with it. You shouldn't listen to the hype that tells you consoles suck. They don't. They have points about them that are very valid (ease of use, portability, instant gaming). Just dont buy into the hype and use arguments made by 12 year old youtube jockeys to make your point. You do not need to excuse your gaming habits. Just go play, its fun.
  • flomo 12y ago
    One thing the "master race" seems oblivious about is how owning a desktop computer has become a lifestyle choice. Many people have no need/desire to have a computer desk and office-style chair and a large screen in front of their face. (Perhaps it seems too much like work?) While not strictly "technical", the size/space/noise is a big disadvantage to PC gaming. (Although admittedly there are things like SteamBoxes.)
    • bitJericho 12y ago
      Would it shock you if I told you you can hook it up behind or under your living room TV, use a wireless mouse/kb/remote and use xbox controllers?
      • flomo 12y ago
        No, because I addressed that point with the reference to Steamboxes (or MediaPCs or whatever other name they have.)
        • wink 12y ago
          I don't see your point how it's any more a lifestyle choice to have a (bigger) TV for your console. Playing games on my 360 in the living room takes up a lot more space than the desk+chair in the other room. And yes, I hardly use the living room, actually more often for games than watching TV or movies.
• vlunkr 12y ago
  I agree. These PC/Console flame wars have been going on since the beginning of the internet. To say that either is "superior" is pretty meaningless, you can argue why one is better in certain respects, but in the end declaring one to be better than the other is totally subjective.
  • ChuckMcM 12y ago
    It is interesting to look at the history, where the original "flame wars" were Arcade vs private gaming. Pong was an arcade game, and then it was a thing you could plug into your TV, arcade machines (the 'consoles' of their time) got better, and personal computers got better (they fed off the same technology eco-system after all). Then 'consoles' which were nearly as good as the Arcade machines but not as good as full blown computers, but they were cheaper than full blown computers. And then the C64/Atari campaign where they could be "a console AND a computer" and then the Amiga which was better than Consoles of the day and a computer, which inspired other computers (PCs mostly but some Macs) to get better, which nearly wiped out Console sales, until Sony dropped the PlayStation on the scene which was as good as a much more expensive PC, and then Sega and Nintendo fought back and upped their 'console' game with the Jaquar and the Game Cube, except 3Dfx has just put out a really cost effective 3D accelerator card and now PCs jumped ahead fast, and Consoles needed to sell for a long time to make up their costs (money was made on software not hardware) so the rapid evolution of 3D hardware gave PCs an edge as people swapped out video cards and then motherboards with faster and still faster video 'slots', and now the consoles were way behind, except they could still be cheaper than the high end PCs, and now a lot of the performance changes relative to games has flattened and ever since the Xbox where Microsoft showed you could essentially repackage a PC as a console, well the differences have become shallower and shallower.
    • vlunkr 12y ago
      Thanks for the summary, my video game knowledge doesn't go back that far, haha. I agree though that the differences between consoles and PC's are starting to blur. For that reason I'm rooting for SteamOS. I think it won't be an easy transition, because gamers are so entrenched in their ecosystems, but I would love to see the strengths of both platforms together and do away with some of the old principles the gaming world is holding onto.
• forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  Agreed. I love my PS3, and have a PS4 as well. I don't have a gaming PC, because I'm completely happy with the games that are released on consoles, and don't have the interest in building a gaming PC. The games I like are released for consoles first, and often aren't released on PC at all, and when they are, it seems like a lot of times they are just shitty ports. Console provides the best experience for me. Anyone that tells me differently is simply wrong, because it's subjective.
• thefreeman 12y ago
  It annoys me too, but for a different reason. I've been a PC gamer since far before it was "popular". So I have obviously always preferred it. Nothing has really changed in the arena of PC gaming vs Consoles in terms of the actual differences between them, but now all of the sudden everybody's jumping on this bandwagon. The same people who said Halo revolutionized multiplayer gaming are the ones spamming about "PC Master Race" now. (Not trying to pick on Halo in particular, but I use it as an example because I feel there were many PC games released before it which provided the same or better multiplayer FPS experience)