PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

[deanb]

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/pc-games-have-surpassed-console-games-globally/033849

 

So stats are suggesting PC gaming has surpassed Console gaming, which isn't a massive surprise given Steam alone is thundering up to console capacity and that doesn't include big beasts like Blizzard and LoL.

 

Of course what is worth mentioning is that we are at the start of a new console gen, and generally there tends to be flux at the end as people move to PC to get thier modern gaming fix while last gen consoles age. Though in the past Digital wasn't as big a thing as it is now and that is definetly giving PC a massive kick in flexibility and long tail sales.

[danielpholt]

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/pc-games-have-surpassed-console-games-globally/033849

 

So stats are suggesting PC gaming has surpassed Console gaming, which isn't a massive surprise given Steam alone is thundering up to console capacity and that doesn't include big beasts like Blizzard and LoL.

 

Of course what is worth mentioning is that we are at the start of a new console gen, and generally there tends to be flux at the end as people move to PC to get thier modern gaming fix while last gen consoles age. Though in the past Digital wasn't as big a thing as it is now and that is definetly giving PC a massive kick in flexibility and long tail sales.

 

I'm just not seeing this boom in PC gamers though. I don't doubt the figures, but everyone I know who plays video games, plays them on their sofa with a Sony or Microsoft console. 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Eh, when you're counting nothing but terrible free to play shit like DOTA2 and LoL the numbers make a lot more sense. Plus, all of those games people buy but don't play.

[TheMightyEthan]

Plus, all of those games people buy but don't play.

Who would do such a thing?! Certainly not I!

[deanb]

Not like some of the most popular game on consoles is COD or anything.

 

Also just checking Steam stats, when you've got DOTA 2 at over half a million players today, then 130K on CSGO (not free) and 63K on DSII and FM 2014 (also not free), it's a bit hard to say it's all on F2P games (of which being terrible is largely subjective, and at this point those games are getting on, TF2 especially, whereas most console games have at most a years shelf life), and games that people aren't playing. Steam alone also has just a smidgen less active users than there are 360s ever sold (of which there's 48 million Live users, Silver and Gold).

[deanb]

I'm gonna be a dummy and reply to these aren't I?

 

I fully acknowledge this is my own issue, but I'm so perfectionist about getting games adjusted just so that on PC I end up spending more time screwing with graphics settings than I do playing the game, especially at the beginning when everything is getting going.  At the moment a PC in my price range isn't enough better than the consoles to justify dealing with that hassle.

  

And it's not like it's just that either. Gaming on PC requires significantly more efforts than on console. Even before you start having to tweak settings there's redundant DRM layers to juggle, then there's drivers and hardware issues and what not. I mean, don't get me wrong, if I could afford to build a 2000$ gaming PC tomorrow I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

But with a console, you trade performance for convenience. You just pop in your disc and can jump in right away with no extra steps required on your part. So, GOH's comment about console ownership being more annoying makes no sense whatsoever to me. I'm not sure how to interpret it other than "hurrr master race". Care to elaborate, Mr. GOH?

So both of these cover the "convenience" factor, with games working out the box and not requiring any updates.

 

If you're on a modern GeForce card you have the GeForce Experience which deals with the optimisation stuff for you:

Also does all your driver updates too.

 

And if you're on an AMD/ATi card then you've got Raptr:

(Less than ideal, but you did pick up an AMD GPU)

 

And Steam can deal with AMDs updating too.

 

 

I have only had a problem with either of them one time, last Christmas when I was trying to play Splinter Cell: Blacklist, there was like an hour long period where I couldn't connect.

An hour? That's not too bad all in all. Pretty sure the consoles go down for fairly frequent downtime too, and when that happens all play is off. Origin, uPlay and Steam don't tend to align their downtime.

 

This gen there's even less "plug n play"ness about consoles than last time, as noted by Goh there's also the combo of both consoles requiring monthly sub for MP which is a hassle pretty much only relegated to MMO players on PC. Both consoles require installs, pretty large ones at that, so there goes one of the last bastions of plug n play consoles had. Over the last couple of years PCs have gone leaps and bounds to a more "consolised" experience for those looking, while consoles have had little choice but to become more and more complex to fulfil demand. Apart from delving into older games, or if you're wanting to skip the start-up videos there's not much need to be fiddling with a PC game.

 

Was a topic of discussion amongst housemates earlier, we're finding beyond a handful of exclusives there's less and less reason to go with consoles each passing gen.

[Mister Jack]

People keep saying that pc gaming is more convenient and meanwhile I'm just sitting here still unable to play The Witcher for three years now because it keeps crashing my computer and I have fuck all idea how to fix it.

 

That's not even getting into when Uplay wouldn't let me install/play Blood Dragon for an entire day.

[TheMightyEthan]

@Dean:  I know those apps exist, but 1) they're not perfect at it, 2) they prioritize different things than me, and 3) it doesn't fix my overwhelming urge to fiddle with settings to get it just right.  On console there are no options so I have no urge to fiddle and can get on with just enjoying the game.  But like I said, I realize this is a problem with me and not the platform specifically.

[Mal]

Getting it right for me is getting a stable frame rate with graphics up as high as possible. It's relatively fast but with some games it'll take a bit. Shadow of Mordor was a fun one to play around with but I wished it had a auto restart functions when the game needs a restart for the setting to take hold.

 

I'm a tweaker so PC gaming jives well with me but of course I also do well with consoles. However, I often sit there and wonder "How much better can this be if this was on PC?". This was quite frequent during the later stages of last gen. Even now it is a bit like it during the current gen. PT looks amazing though so it is really up to the developers to flesh out the consoles. If they don't do that then well, this might be another long generation.

[toxicitizen]

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that consoles are better because of the convenience or anything like that. I was responding to the specific claim that console ownership is more annoying, which made no sense to me. So replying to my post in this other thread feels kind of out of context.

 

But whatever, like Ethan said, those apps are an imperfect solution at best. And even with the hassle they remove, they're still another superfluous step between you and playing the game. Personally, I'll always choose to directly fiddle with game settings over using an app like that. If settings tweaking sounds so horrible to someone that they'd rather use an app like this, they're probably better off getting a console, no?

Edited October 6, 2014 by FLD

[TheMightyEthan]

I use the apps to get a starting point, and then fiddle with it from there.

 

*Edit* - oh, also, my one hour downtime thing was to make exactly that point: it wasn't bad. I mean, it was irritating at the time, but no worse than other platforms I've used. Though (other than Destiny) I don't end to play online games much so network downtime doesn't really stop me from playing my console games.

[deanb]

@Dean:  I know those apps exist, but 1) they're not perfect at it, 2) they prioritize different things than me, and 3) it doesn't fix my overwhelming urge to fiddle with settings to get it just right.  On console there are no options so I have no urge to fiddle and can get on with just enjoying the game.  But like I said, I realize this is a problem with me and not the platform specifically.

 

For getting going without the hassle they're more than suitable for the task with the majority of games, and that's assuming it's not a game that auto optimises itself anyway which many modern titles do. You're not limited or dictated to what settings you can have (which'd be where this started from in the AC thread). For point 2, less so with the Raptr app, but with the GeForce experience you can specifically set whether you'd prefer quality over speed, so it can prioritize to what you want (I personally go with quality, I'm not exactly playing twitch shooters). And the fiddling thing that's on your head.

 

I guess I'd just be a bit upset if I spent £350 on a machine, £40 on the game and was told "no you can't run this at full, nor even to fit your monitor/TV, cos this other person has a shitter PC", it's certainly restrictive and annoying and with console there's no way around that. Skyrim runs slow and jittery on a PC there's plenty ways to sort it out so it's smooth, Skyrim runs slow on your console that's the shit sandwich you have to put up with.  I think with the changes over the last 2-3 years it's a bit of a falsehood to state that PC gaming is any more complex than console gaming. Probably the most complex thing left in PC gaming is figuring out which edition of a Ubisoft game comes with all the pre-order DLC, assuming at least one does.

 

Obviously folks have difference tolerances, but for me consoles are certainly becoming less of a thing to have given all the other choice and options out there. Last gen was already pretty heavy with majority of console titles hitting PC, and you don't need to buy the game twice to get it in HD (even if they try)

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I'll listen to any arguments to buy gaming PC when we don't have a 24 page PCs for dummies thread. Or do have a 24 page consoles for dummies thread. Either is fine.

[TheMightyEthan]

I get the fiddling's on me, I've said that several times, but I'm taking about my person reasons so there you go.

As far as prioritizing different things than me, I mean they'll do stuff like turn down resolution when I would have turned down shadows or whatever.

Edited October 7, 2014 by TheMightyEthan
stupid autocorrect

[toxicitizen]

I think with the changes over the last 2-3 years it's a bit of a falsehood to state that PC gaming is any more complex than console gaming.

You know what's an actual falsehood? Claiming that PC gaming and console gaming are equally complex. That's just downright false. A game isn't going to "run slow" on your console. It's going to run slow on all the consoles. Like I said, you trade performance for convenience. So, barring any kind of Skyrim PS3 situation (i.e. a completely broken product), console games are generally going to be reasonably optimized for the specific hardware in your machine. Reasonable performance with none of the hassle.

 

Believe it or not, most people don't give that much of a shit about performance or framerates. An increasing number of people just want to play the Call of Halos on their X-Station, man. They couldn't give less of a shit about installing drivers and apps to tweak their shit for them.

[Mal]

Okay, the following phase triggered my $.25.

Call of Halos

One of the reasons for people to get into PC gaming is because it is so dynamic and diverse. There's an absolute ton of interesting, and admittedly now with an indie majority (not a bad thing though), games that is PC only or make their debut on the PC (e.g., Minecraft for a huge example). Consoles gaming has gotten better in that regard in the last half decade (?) with a terrible start by Microsoft and a very concentrated effort by Sony (Seems like it tied in a lot of people with the PS4 launch). So it isn't all just Call of Final Halo Melee now. Still though, I argue that PC gaming also have improved and continue to improve. With the 360 controller, there is finally a golden standard for a controller which makes. Prior to that you had a crap shoot of Duel Shock knockoffs that may not work well with a game. Terrible times. As of today, you can use a wireless X1 or PS4 controller. Motherfucking wireless! In addition, JRPGs are making a presence on PC, a genre that is normally console/handheld based. There are even Japanese indie games showing up on Steam. A wide and varied taste of East and West on the same machine. The whole gaming scene, to me, is evolving from an option A and/or B to a Option A/B with varying spectrum of both.

 

PC gaming is to video gaming like how gardening/cooking is to eating. They give me options to how I enjoy what I am passionate about. There's ton of crap you can buy and do in each all with results ranging from awesome to absolute shit. A lot of people are okay with the basic staples and that is fine. No reason to put those people down.

 

Oh, and PC gaming got to be the easiest of the bunch*.  It is pretty much groundwork research. No different for what I do for gardening, cooking and hell, my thesis work. Speaking of which I should get back to... since you all know how I feel about gardening and geology, the above should help frame a viewpoint on why a person choose PC gaming. Not sure if I really said anything though.

 

*Admittedly, it is quite a sudden jump from consoles to PC since there is really only so many consoles but I feel with this generation it is starting or can start to blur in a noticeable way. I believe that console games may eventually come with option menus that matters. Think FOV sliders and basic option A and B graphic/performance choices. As a person who love choices, I don't any barrier on see why not other than will.

 

tl;dr: PC gaming is for those who want to go further and... perhaps read the damn thing if you care enough to find out what I am trying to say.

Edited October 8, 2014 by MaliciousH

[SomTervo]

I love your whole post, MH, except the bit about PCs being easier.

 

From my experience of building computers (several times in the last 12 years or so, though I fully understand it's improved since then), I'll get all the hardware, get all the software, put it all together and it won't work. Something won't, at least. And I won't understand why. This is with strong base research and friends who are ridiculously knowledgable about computers. The friends won't know what to do either. Things just won't work, even if minor/irrelevant. I'll be able to run some games and not others, I'll get random errors or things won't work the way they should, or performance won't be as good as it should be by-all-accounts.

 

And this chat about consoles needing more install time now is bullshit.

 

When I got my PS4, I unpacked it, plugged it all in, spent about 20 seconds booting it up and answering a couple of basic questions, then I was playing games. Fully, probably one minute set-up. The games were up and running within 20-30 seconds, too. Installs are fully automatic and take literally seconds. I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me PS4 had some SDD memory sitting in it, the installs are so fast.

 

I fully understand PCs aren't far off this nowadays. Probably a couple of minutes set-up too. The problems on PC for me always come further down the line, be it half an hour down the line when I try to install/run a game, or months down the line when something stops working or I get a new game which doesn't work.

 

Even if I don't have any show-stopping issues on PC, in almost every experience I've had, I'm left feeling that the games are incomplete or not ideal because I have to compromise on settings. Like I remember fiddling with Far Cry 2 loads- I could have High textures or Low environment, or Low environment or High textures, etc. etc.- but would never be satisfied. I always find it the same on PC.

 

The crux: I've never had the money to buy a PC which will give me everything out-the-box, so I'm just left feeling permanently dissatisfied, compromising on how I'd like things to look best. It never feels right. I'll enjoy a game for a few minutes then some terrible bit of lighting or rubbish texture or bad jaggy will jolt me out of it and I'll remember "I'm playing this on PC. It's so not ideal."

 

Consoles, while far weaker, usually have a bunch more optimisation work put in by the devs, so even if games on console will never reach PC highs in terms of performance, they are always consistent, look very together on-the-whole, and require no fiddling/compromise.

 

Edit: Also, a huge boon with consoles is being able to pack them up in a few seconds, and truck them off to friends'/family's houses, plug it into their TV in a minute and have a great time all together. With a PC it's not too much more hassle, but the size of the thing leaves it more vulnerable to damage and difficult + risky to move, and the TV has to have relevant inputs. Plus having a few controllers for a console is a lot easier than managing controllers on a PC. I've had recent experience of this, playing 3 and 4 player games on PC at a friends' house.

Edited October 8, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[TheMightyEthan]

I just want to clarify that while I can't speak for other people, I personally have not been arguing that console gaming is better, just that it's simpler.

[toxicitizen]

-snip-

Maybe it's too early for me to be on the internet because I had to re-read that a couple times to really get what you were trying to say. I'm getting the sense that maybe you misunderstood me or perhaps my tone came across wrong because I wasn't putting anyone down or trying to criticize either PC gaming or console gaming. You are absolutely correct that PC gaming is for those who want to go further, I thought that was the indirect implication of my posts. I was saying that console gaming, with all its simplicity and easy of use, is for those that don't want to do that.

 

I believe that console games may eventually come with option menus that matters. Think FOV sliders and basic option A and B graphic/performance choices. As a person who love choices, I don't any barrier on see why not other than will.

Well, I don't think there's any need for something remotely close to an FOV slider in terms of options on consoles but yeah, we've already seen an example of something like this in The Last of Us: Remastered. The game offers the option to run at 30 FPS with some fancy effects (I think it's mostly shadows) or 60 FPS without. There's really no need for any kind of advanced tweaking beyond something basic like that, though, because the hardware is the same in every single machine. They can essentially tweak your game for you and, in some cases, probably get a little bit more out of the hardware than you normally could.

 

edit:

I just want to clarify that while I can't speak for other people, I personally have not been arguing that console gaming is better, just that it's simpler.

Same here. I think dean quoting us here from the other thread caused some unintended implication. Like I said in my original reply, it's a little out of context from the original conversation.

Edited October 8, 2014 by FLD

[SomTervo]

I am also in the camp that I definitely don't think console gaming is better than PC gaming. Just a whole lot less energy required for 80% the same experiences. Although obviously there are some incredible experiences which consoles will never capture fully and are relatively commonplace on PC. Among other things like KBM being a far better control input option for certain games.

 

Edit: I should add that, if you have a powerful PC rig which works perfectly, then I'd quite happily concede that it probably is the best gaming platform. Especially if you can use a controller like the DualShock 4, then that's set in stone. The caveat of cost in time and effort as well as money just takes a big ole mallet and hobbles the advantages PC offers in many cases.

 

Frankly it's not the fact of these issues which is offputting- but the risk of these issues coming up. I'd rather stick with console where I know I won't have to do any fiddling/much extra thought to enjoy experiences which are largely the same.

Edited October 8, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Mal]

Never quite said that PC gaming is easier, its just becoming easier but yeah, I see ya'll points. I think for this forums, I might use my computer for stuff beyond gaming more often than all/most other here. Having a strong computer is a must for dealing with huge files and a lot of editing/content creation programs.

 

Remember folks, earth sciences are multidisciplinary even to the non-science realm. -leaks-

[deanb]

 

I think with the changes over the last 2-3 years it's a bit of a falsehood to state that PC gaming is any more complex than console gaming.

You know what's an actual falsehood? Claiming that PC gaming and console gaming are equally complex. That's just downright false. A game isn't going to "run slow" on your console. It's going to run slow on all the consoles. Like I said, you trade performance for convenience. So, barring any kind of Skyrim PS3 situation (i.e. a completely broken product), console games are generally going to be reasonably optimized for the specific hardware in your machine. Reasonable performance with none of the hassle.

 

Believe it or not, most people don't give that much of a shit about performance or framerates. An increasing number of people just want to play the Call of Halos on their X-Station, man. They couldn't give less of a shit about installing drivers and apps to tweak their shit for them.

 

 

Not sure how a game running slow on your machine cos it runs slow on someone else's is related to complexity. I definitely don't even see how a game being forced, with no way to change that on your end, to run at a lower resolution and performance than the £350 machine you bought is capable of, could ever be spun to be in any way positive.

 

Also if no one gave a shit about performance this conversation wouldn't have even started. As for installing updates, unless there's something changed this gen, which it hasn't, you still need to install updates like last gen too.

 

 

I-snip-

With regards to the FC2 stuff, as I said earlier in recent years stuff like the GeForce experience have really stepped it up in that regard, you don't need to be fiddling (unless compulsive urges like Ethan) to get it set up to what your PC can handle.

Consoles are the compromise, a static unmoving box that's already a year obsolete with next to no choice (which removing any choice seems to be the crux of yours, FLDs n Ethans posts) in so many areas. As for install times, the games come on 25-50GB discs and it's a 6X reader (max speed of 26MB/s), so in 20 seconds it'll read about half a gigabyte and about 14 minutes to read a full disc.

Addendum on this point: So apparently the Xbox One and PS4 vary wildly to the point that I don't think the PS4 is "installing" the game per se. Xbox One takes around 10-15 minutes to install games, as the maths covers. PS4 games apparently can boot up in under 40 seconds.

Further digging: It's called "PlayGo", basically the first part of your game you are playing it in the old fashioned way and it installs the rest in the background, so it will take you about 15minutes to install the game, just you don't have to install it to play it off the bat. Nice feature, I remember when there was attempts with similar on PC ages back. I can't remember why it was dropped.

 

 

I guess for the most part it's all down to whether you're wanting choice or not, and my PC-gaming Android-toting habits might imply I'm a fan of having choice where I can take it (in more than tech areas too  ). Maybe I have my computer set up differently to folks but fiddling with drivers and the like is ancient history (reviving my 10+ year old PC is my most recent "having to manually dig up drivers" experience), Windows Updates does pretty much everything you need on first blush, and every now and then I click the green "you have new Geforce Drivers" and that's it. Steam updates automatically when I boot up my PC (less clean than Chrome, but I'd certainly be far back in the line of folks saying Valve make polished software).

I just think it's getting pretty outdated to imply PC gaming is complex n a pain to set up, much as it'd be outdated to say console gaming is as plug n play as it was in the old days of "insert cart/disc, press on". The lines have been converging for a while to the point of blurring.

[Mr. GOH!]

Pretty certain Diablo 3 has the whole "start playing before the game is finished downloading and installin," Dean. Since I am not a caveman, I only download games on PC, and installation only rarely takes more than 5 minutes these days. Shadow of Mordor and Alien: Isolation were both done quite quickly. This is a newish feature, at least for Steam; I recall a year or two ago, new games still had that odd directx install step that seemed to take anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes by itself. 

 

I certainly think the argument that PCs are so much more complex to run games on than consoles are is rooted in tech from a decade ago. it has gotten much, much easier to game on PC, from much easier home-brew PC builds, to easier software management and improvements to Steam, Origin and even Uplay (among other game clients/stores). The complicated stuff in modern PC gaming lies from trying to do things like deal with unofficial mods, emulate old consoles, attach Playstation controllers so they run natively in PC games, and so on. Yes, a component could fail and you'd be hassled with diagnosing the problem and getting it fixed. In my experience, however, RMAing decent-to-good PC parts is much better than dealing with Microsoft's RMA process (although Alienware, of all companies, has gone to amazing lengths to fix a couple of issues I've had with my aging laptop). 

 

PC gaming is a little bit more expensive than console gaming, and a little bit more complex. People are intimidated more than they should be by PC gaming, but I think the real reasons people get consoles have more to do with exclusives, hype, and having friends to play with in multiplayer. 

Edited October 9, 2014 by Mr. GOH!

[toxicitizen]

Not sure how a game running slow on your machine cos it runs slow on someone else's is related to complexity. I definitely don't even see how a game being forced, with no way to change that on your end, to run at a lower resolution and performance than the £350 machine you bought is capable of, could ever be spun to be in any way positive.

Lol. What? I never said anything of the sort. My point was that your claim that "if a game runs slow on your console, you're shit out of luck" was kind of an exaggeration. And I never said anything about positives or negatives. Once more: I'm not saying console gaming is better than PC Gaming. That was never the point of the conversation you initially quoted from and I'm not interested in such a pointless argument.

 

 

Also if no one gave a shit about performance this conversation wouldn't have even started. As for installing updates, unless there's something changed this gen, which it hasn't, you still need to install updates like last gen too.

You mean that conversation that's only taking place in enthusiast circles like NeoGAF and such? Yeah, that's a very small segment of the market. Do you seriously believe the resolution and framerate of ACU on consoles is going to have any kind of impact on its sales? I sure as hell don't, not for an IP this big. And I never said "no one cares", I said "most people don't care". I'm starting to think you're intentionally twisting my words, here. :/

[deanb]

@Goh: With likes of download clients there's not really even an install anymore, the game files are downloaded to the exact spots they'd install too. Only really GOG games you need to install after downloading. I think the demise of the DirectX "First time set up" with each game thing is cos of DX9, now mostly moved past (Mordor is DX11 only, not sure of Alien Isolation).

Expense is really only an initial outlay difference though, after that it's significantly cheaper in most areas (Ubisoft wanting to be an exception of late). Back on the core theme of choice, that certainly helps with PC game prices. Sony & MS don't really have to compete price wise on thier own devices.

 

@FLD: I qouteth again:

" A game isn't going to "run slow" on your console. It's going to run slow on all the consoles. Like I said, you trade performance for convenience."

And the point of the initial conversation was about the fact the PS4 version being gimped to provide parity with the lower performing Xbox One. With a PC that doesn't happen, if you can run full blast on your machine you can, you're not stuck to the lowest common denominator for "convenience". Being SOL isn't an exaggeration here, if you want your game to run to the capability of your machine there's nothing you can do about it except hope the developer releases a patch.

 

Also the conversation is taking place here, the quotes aren't from NeoGAF, that link goes to Cowboy in all caps right in the Assassins Creed thread. And I've never said anything in regards to sales, I'm not a share holder nor do I particularly care on the continued financial success of the AC series (especially now Mordor has shat all over it at its own game). Though as a prospective console buyer I certainly do care about the choices open to me in expanding my gaming, and I'd be a bit upset if a £350 year old console couldn't/wouldn't even fill every loving pixel of a 7 year old TV, never mind 4K been on the market at this point too. 1080p is an increasingly low target to aim for. No one else a bit surprised or upset that an entire generation later it's still not a basic standard? HD was new last gen, it made sense that only a few games would hit it. Less acceptable now I'd think.