PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

[Hot Heart]

PC gaming is great and all, but speaking personally, I just can't be bothered with all the hassle I get. Some games run extremely well and that's great, but more often than not, I'm looking at poorly optimised ports or strange graphics issues.

 

Couldn't get past a certain point in The Witcher 1 because it just crashes every time.

 

Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit had problems with CTD and performance issues on multi-core CPUs(!), plus missing effects (could hear wet and rain but not see any). The other one Criterion made also has issues and crashing when it does some of the arty crap intro videos, so I just can't play them anymore.

 

If I wanted to run AC3 or Arkham Origins without framerate issues, I had to reinstall the graphics drivers before playing (no idea why) and an update clash at one point meant having to unplug the graphics card just to get the PC to use different drivers to be able to start the PC and resolve the issue.

 

I gave up on Brutal Legend because the open world won't run smoothly, no matter what I do. Same goes for Prototype 2. Saints Row 3 just randomly wiped my save after I was a good way through, so I'm not bothering with any more. Sonic Generations has the occasional framerate hiccup and some areas just won't maintain a stable one. Tomb Raider had a gamebreaking bug right near the end that meant I needed to restart the whole game (good job I really liked it).

 

And I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of other annoying little niggles compared to how smooth everything's been when playing a console game (particularly on PS4)

 

I'm just fed up with all the messing around just to play most games. Maybe some of it's related to my PC being from the start of 2010. Maybe it's ATI-related, but then I won't hear people saying, "Serves you right for buying that version of the PS4."

 

I'll still game on my PC, for sure, but I'm finding myself increasingly low on patience with issues I'm finding on the multi-platform releases (why can't Nixxes do everything?). I'm happy to use the PS4 for now and then probably buy a new PC a few years down the line.

[toxicitizen]

@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.

Wrong. My post that you initially quoted wasn't about that at all. It was a direct response to GOH's off-topic comment that "console ownership is more annoying than either Uplay or Origin". Maybe make sure you have a proper grasp of what a conversation is about before you start cherry picking things to reply to in completely unrelated threads?

 

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.

And my stance on this is that a game running at a solid 30 FPS at a resolution close to 1080p is hardly being SOL. If I buy a console as my primary gaming platform (as I'll be doing in a few short months), then yeah, I'm not going to be expecting every single game to be 1080p60. Because I'm not a fucking idiot, I know that's completely unrealistic. Not good enough for you? Play on your damn PC, then. That's what I'd be doing if I could afford a new build. In the meantime, I'll gladly grab a PS4 and play on that. The games won't be any less enjoyable.

 

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.

*Sigh* "like NeoGAF and such" were my exact words. This place really isn't all that different in regards to what kind of gamers frequent it. NeoGAF is just much, much bigger. Not sure what you thought you were refuting here.

 

And the sales thing was just an extension of my point that those who feel strongly about this are the minority. Because that's what the initial conversation was actually about: the majority of people not being the same kind of tech-savvy gaming enthusiasts you find on the internet. Hence the whole trading performance for convenience thing.

 

Goddamn man, you're fucking exhausting to deal with. If you keep twisting my words to try and pry nonexistent arguments out of them, then I'm just not gonna bother replying to you any more. It's worth neither the time nor the energy. I'm starting to have flashbacks of a certain crazy person that briefly visited us over the summer...

[Mister Jack]

Also, I can only speak for myself but I don't think I've ever had a constantly crashing pc game that was fixed by Nvidia's automatic tweaking or driver updating software.  Yeah, in theory that's supposed to make everything work all nice and neat, but in practice I've found it to be useless at best.  It's just an unmistakable fact that tons of console games end up with shitty, poorly programmed, poorly optimized PC ports.  Is it fair?  No, but them's the breaks.  Even when the developers have the best of intentions, everyone's PC is different and it's just not possible for them to consider every user's configuration.  A game that works great on one PC will run like garbage on someone else's, and it isn't always because of low specs.  When that happens, all you can really do is hope for either a patch or a mod like the one Dark Souls got.  No matter how powerful your rig is, every time you buy a PC game you're gambling on the possibility of it not working right on your machine.  For a lot of people that's an acceptable risk to take in exchange for games that will usually perform better and I totally understand that, but ever since games jumped up to PS4/Xbox One standards my PC just hasn't been up to the job and I can't be bothered to keep messing with it.

 

I feel like at least part of the argument being made to support the idea that PC games are more convenient is the notion that all you have to do is load up steam (or Origin/Uplay), pick a game from the store, download it to your library, and click play.  Well, yes, if all goes well then it really is that simple, but in the world of PC gaming there are a lot of times when it DOESN'T go that well, and when your brand new PC game shits the bed you're looking at hours or maybe even days of trying to pinpoint the problem.  Conversely, the only console game I've bought that I can recall having such terrible crashing issues was Battlefield 4 and...well, that game was a truly special case of shittiness.

 

PC games are great and they are indeed convenient if they work right on your machine.  If.  Problem is, you really have no way of knowing until after you buy it and play it, so you're rolling the dice with every purchase, especially since there are no refunds (except on Origin).  Even those big youtubers like Angry Joe and Totalbiscuit who have pimped out rigs specifically so they can buy and review every major PC release get screwed over sometimes.

[Mal]

One thing I will say about the current gen is that I expected better performance from them. It seems like we'll have to wait for a few years before most/all devs stick with a 1080p @ solid 30 fps standard when they finally work out how to squeeze out all the power of the consoles. Currently there's a bit too much 900p or some junk popping up still. Yes, most of you guys probably don't care since it still works out from the box but from the way I look at it, if some devs can pull it off then other big names devs can too. Also what devs can do on consoles will have an affect on what they can do on PC. By the look of things, this generation it seems like the X1 will be dragging everybody down. If and how much will depend on the dev.

 

God forbid that most devs can't pull off a 1080p @ solid 30 fps standard later this generation and by extension, next generation. Note, I don't expect 4k TV to be much of a thing for a while. It took pretty much of all last generation to get most people to adopt HDTVs. I'm still running on my first big screen 1080p HDTV that I got for cheap when the cheaper ones were starting to come out.

[deanb]

Huh, I was actually going to bring up Brutal Legend as an example of a game I've played recently that was super simple to get up and running, especially given it was a console port after thought. It just booted up, had all the settings to what it needed to be and chugged along fine.
 
Yeah, some major game releases usually accompany driver updates, most GPU drivers tend to mainly be a changelog of "improved optimisation with [game that comes out in 2 days]", though as already noted driver updates are pretty simple these days (though I can't speak for ATI, but I'm under impression that's tied in with Steam these days so not a major pain, and once again something consoles have done for years now.
 
SRIII use Steam Cloud, Yeah I've been hit with it fucking up in the past too with Rock of Ages. I generally turn it off these days n go with the more manual Game Save Manager. One of those choice/convenience things again I guess. I'm also under impression the new consoles come with cloud saves by default (I know at least PS3 picked it up as a feature in its later life), so I'm reckoning it won't be a non-existent occurrence of cloud sync errors losing a few games on 8th gen either. No alternative cloud providers either with consoles.
 
edit: oh FLD responded in mean time:
"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. "
That's from the initial quote, which is response to GOH, in response to the whole "AC: Unity running at lower settings to better bring parity to the weaker Xbox One" palava. How is that not like:
" 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."
You even use the whole "trade performance for convenience" in both.
 
And in your initially quoted bit you firstly stated:
"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."
This is the outdated thinking that's been tackled. The gap between convenience is minimal these days, and the performance increasingly growing. The console games that are sub-HD today will be sub-HD in 5 years time, but rare is the PC game without 1080p support this day n age, and in 5 years I'd expect 4K to be pretty common.
 

 

-snip-

And my stance on this is that a game running at a solid 30 FPS at a resolution close to 1080p is hardly being SOL. If I buy a console as my primary gaming platform (as I'll be doing in a few short months), then yeah, I'm not going to be expecting every single game to be 1080p60. Because I'm not a fucking idiot, I know that's completely unrealistic. Not good enough for you? Play on your damn PC, then. That's what I'd be doing if I could afford a new build. In the meantime, I'll gladly grab a PS4 and play on that. The games won't be any less enjoyable.

 

I never mentioned about the 60fps, as I even said in the latest post in AC I don't care on that side much beyond Ubis "I'll treat y'all like idiots" response on the matter. Mainly that with the console one is brought down to suit the other, your SOL cos you do more than likely have a machine that can run the game at full 1080p HDness. But you're not allowed and there's nothing you can do about it. As I said in the bit you quote, that's what makes you SOL, there's nothing that you can do.
I feel like I'm maybe taking crazy pills on the whole "being shocked that 8th gen consoles don't do 1080p, or they can but cos one can't the other isn't allowed to" thing. "No Console Left Behind". No one here but me kinda expected that'd be a base feature of 8th gen games, to fit the resolution of 7-8yr+ TVs?
 
I know "NeoGAF and such" were your words. I was refuting that this isn't NeoGAF, I'm not randomly quoting Gafers, I'm quoting you guys on here. We're having a conversation, here, about something one of us posted about on here. Here.
 

And the sales thing was just an extension of my point that those who feel strongly about this are the minority. Because that's what the initial conversation was actually about: the majority of people not being the same kind of tech-savvy gaming enthusiasts you find on the internet. Hence the whole trading performance for convenience thing.

I would imagine that the majority of people that are buying a £350+ console within a year of launch are the tech-savvy enthusiasts, most early adopters are. It's a big explainer for the difference between Xbox One and PS4 sales, if it was purely just a popularity contest the Xbox One would have more than likely carried on the success of the 360. But the launch blunders of the Xbox One that only "tech savvy gaming enthusiasts" would care for seem to have impacted it a fair bit. 
 
I'm not twisting any of your words, I'm quoting you directly in most cases. If you don't wish to reply any more that's up to you, though the implication of calling me crazy isn't exactly a welcome one. I'm not forcing you to reply, I'm not forcing you to buy a PC either. What you regard as a acceptable trade off in performance is up to you, if you find it fine for devs to gimp a title and it being fine cos only a "minority" cares that's up to you. Choices are great. That's my core thoughts on the matter (in case you ain't picked that up).

 

@Mister Jack:

Yeah I didn't want to be to obvious on the elephant in the room with HotHearts but majority were console ports. (Though as I said above, I thought Brutal Legend ran great).

With regards to risk, one thing I like with PC (for many reasons beyond just this specific use) is that I can "demo" titles before putting the cash down. And yeah not all games work with all specs, certainly newer titles on older machines. Saw earlier someone complaining Mordor didn't work, and then when question was asked turns out they were trying to run the game on a 8600GT, which isn't supported at all. Yeah, it's a bit simpler to just run on either PS3 or PS4.  And yeah, some games are buggy, with a large enough pool it's bound to happen. But the upside is you can troubleshoot, with a console you're knackered, there's no ini file to tweak, no DSfix, community patches, if you buy a dud, if any part in your consoles conks out, there's rarely much you can do but shrug and totally move on.

I dunno, maybe if I was more of a console gamer I'd be able to pull up a shit ton of examples of sub-par performing games, and bugs and so on. I know most of the time when checking walkthrough wikis out, especially for RPGs, it's always the consoles with the "if you do this in wrong order it'll break like half a dozen quests and NPCs. This is fixed on PC with the patch or typing in blah in the console command". I know one I'll likely not forget,cos I love the game, is FFX. The later cutscene with Sin wouldn't work on the older PS2. I had to wait until I could borrow my uncles newer PS2 until I could finish the game. Wasn't even gameplay causing an issue, just a video. I suspect if it was a PC title I wouldn't need to get a new PC, but just change a video file name someone that'd make it skip it (kinda like you do with the intro videos on most PC games anyway to conveniently skip all the logo crap).

[Mr. GOH!]

I have not had any significant weird software problem with PC gaming (aside from emulators and trying to get really old games to run in modern Windows) since 2008 or so. Hot Heart is unlucky, haunted, or cursed. Personally, I think it's a gypsy curse.

[toxicitizen]

edit: oh FLD responded in mean time:

"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. "

That's from the initial quote, which is response to GOH, in response to the whole "AC: Unity running at lower settings to better bring parity to the weaker Xbox One" palava. How is that not like:

" 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."

You even use the whole "trade performance for convenience" in both.

 

And in your initially quoted bit you firstly stated:

"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."

This is the outdated thinking that's been tackled. The gap between convenience is minimal these days, and the performance increasingly growing. The console games that are sub-HD today will be sub-HD in 5 years time, but rare is the PC game without 1080p support this day n age, and in 5 years I'd expect 4K to be pretty common.

 

You're quoting me directly but you keep interpreting what I said in ways that completely ignore the context, so you're essentially putting words in my mouth. Replying as if I was implying things that I wasn't. And for the last fucking time: No. I was never commenting on the Unity 900p thing.  Here is the whole tangent my post is from:

 

 

 

 

 

I'd rather play in 900p than put up with uPlay.

 

Yeah, for a while now I've been seriously considering just sticking to consoles for Ubisoft and EA games in the future and I think I'll do just that once I get my PS4. I just can't be bothered to deal with their fucking bullshit on PC anymore.

 

 

Notice how I ignore the 900p bit and only respond to the not wanting to deal with uPlay part?

 

 

 

Uplay and Origin are not nearly as annoying as console ownership.

Oh look, GOH's going on a tangent about console ownership being annoying!

 

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.

Ethan responds to said tangent!

 

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?

And here's my post that you quoted, adding to what Ethan just said. None of this being directly about Unity's console performance.

 

 

 

 

I never mentioned about the 60fps, as I even said in the latest post in AC I don't care on that side much beyond Ubis "I'll treat y'all like idiots" response on the matter. Mainly that with the console one is brought down to suit the other, your SOL cos you do more than likely have a machine that can run the game at full 1080p HDness. But you're not allowed and there's nothing you can do about it. As I said in the bit you quote, that's what makes you SOL, there's nothing that you can do.

I feel like I'm maybe taking crazy pills on the whole "being shocked that 8th gen consoles don't do 1080p, or they can but cos one can't the other isn't allowed to" thing. "No Console Left Behind". No one here but me kinda expected that'd be a base feature of 8th gen games, to fit the resolution of 7-8yr+ TVs?

Maybe you're SOL but I don't give a shit. Even if I knew for a goddamned fact that my hypothetical PS4 could get a whole extra p (or 200!) out of the game, I don't let that shit get in the way of my enjoying the game. Simple as that. I'm not gonna go nuts just because Ubisoft's PR got drunk this week and let them say stupid shit.

 

I know "NeoGAF and such" were your words. I was refuting that this isn't NeoGAF, I'm not randomly quoting Gafers, I'm quoting you guys on here. We're having a conversation, here, about something one of us posted about on here. Here.

So you were refuting some completely meaningless detail then? Noted. All that meant was that my point stands because this conversation is the same regardless of where it's happening because it's the same segment of the market that's having it.

 

 

And the sales thing was just an extension of my point that those who feel strongly about this are the minority. Because that's what the initial conversation was actually about: the majority of people not being the same kind of tech-savvy gaming enthusiasts you find on the internet. Hence the whole trading performance for convenience thing.

I would imagine that the majority of people that are buying a £350+ console within a year of launch are the tech-savvy enthusiasts, most early adopters are. It's a big explainer for the difference between Xbox One and PS4 sales, if it was purely just a popularity contest the Xbox One would have more than likely carried on the success of the 360. But the launch blunders of the Xbox One that only "tech savvy gaming enthusiasts" would care for seem to have impacted it a fair bit.

 

Oh, they're definitely in there. But the PS4 has sold a lot more units than even Sony anticipated at this point. I've seen a bunch of articles about how a sizable chunk of the PS4 userbase are first-time PlayStation users. Like this one. 10 million units is a lot of systems out there for a console not yet a full year old. I think that leaves plenty of room for lots of PS4 owners who are more relaxed about this stuff.

 

Also, the Xbox One blunder was nowhere near as insignificant as stupid resolution drama. If it had been, Microsoft would've never done that 180 as fast as they did. They knew they were in big trouble. If they had thought they could get away with it, they definitely would have stuck to their guns. See Ubisoft's current PR shitstorm. They don't give a fuck, they know Unity's going to sell as well as all the previous AC games.

 

I'm not twisting any of your words, I'm quoting you directly in most cases. If you don't wish to reply any more that's up to you, though the implication of calling me crazy isn't exactly a welcome one. I'm not forcing you to reply, I'm not forcing you to buy a PC either. What you regard as a acceptable trade off in performance is up to you, if you find it fine for devs to gimp a title and it being fine cos only a "minority" cares that's up to you. Choices are great. That's my core thoughts on the matter (in case you ain't picked that up).

I've already addressed the word twisting above. As for the calling you crazy bit, sorry, I'm not trying to insult you. It's just frustrating to be repeatedly quoted out of context and have to reiterate my actual points every damn time. Feels like arguing with a wall and, frankly, it makes your posts come off as kind of schizophrenic. It's like you're mixing an imaginary discussion into the one we're actually having.

 

And it's not like I don't see the issue with lower performance and parity downgrades and what not. It sucks but I just think it's absolutely insane the way people lose their fucking shit over that stuff. So yeah, I think devs have the right idea to ignore this batshit crazy minority. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's fine, but I do think it's simply not that big of a deal. So long as the game is playable (which I mostly define as a solid 30 FPS), then whatever, I bought a console to play some damn video games knowing full well that I'd have an inferior experience.

[TheMightyEthan]

I have not had any significant weird software problem with PC gaming (aside from emulators and trying to get really old games to run in modern Windows) since 2008 or so. Hot Heart is unlucky, haunted, or cursed. Personally, I think it's a gypsy curse.

I haven't had any problems as bad as what he's describing, but I have had random games run poorly for no apparent reason.

[CorgiShinobi]

I only want to add a tidbit as I'm sure we could all look earlier in this thread to see we've come full circle again.

 

I'll never forget when The Wolf Among Us on Windows 8 didn't recognize the Xbox controller. Most users said to download a .dll file, but cautioned it was a bit iffy. Telltales response: download Windows 8.1 for fix.

 

What's my point? Every platform has issues, whether it's a universal limitation or user specific based on performance or components. Deal with it and play your darn vidya gams!

[SomTervo]

 

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.

Yeah I thought as much- and I acknowledged that in my post. I'm obviously a little out of touch with PC protocols nowadays, and I can imagine it's improved a shitton.

 

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

 

Yeah the PlayGo thing is what makes it so quick, nice one on the info find.

 

Indeed, a console hardware is essentially by-definition obsolete at point of purchase, but that doesn't mean devs won't improve massively at using the hardware and software on board, which we know they do. Imho it doesn't matter that much as long as there's some consistent improvement in game fidelity and scope over time, and it's functionally above 30fps/700p or whatever. Basically, I don't really care that it's a year out of date. That doesn't really matter to how good the games are. And the few hundred bob extra for a PC which will make up the difference isn't feasible for me atm (though it may be in the future.)

 

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.

In my big previous post I actually referred to the complicated stuff in PC gaming being tweaking your games. Well, not that it's complicated (because it's not), but that it's one of the platform's main big bothers. Eg my computer won't be able to run everything on high, so I'll have to make really irritating compromises that I'd rather not make. Compared to console where there are no graphical settings past purely aesthetic alterations, going to PC where you have 5 -10 settings which make pretty large differences, and you have to chop and choose between them to find a sweet spot... Yes there is software to help with this- but even with the software you may be left with one visual aspect looking amazing and one aspect looking poor. Which is a really irritating middle ground. On consoles the performance is built to a compromise, punching far above the consoles weight usually, which is made for you. No need to feel disatisfied with your choices, because the choices have been made.

 

Edit: consoles are like buying a packaged holiday. Yes, you won't get the cheapest flight, or the best food, or the comfiest bed, or nicest surroundings- but for a cheaper all-in-once price you get to escape your mundane world and have fun with one stress-free, planning-free payment.

 

PC is like tailoring a specific, lovely holiday to your exact tastes. You'll get a refined, probably better overall experience, with more freedom on a daily basis, but with the added stress of pulling together 3-4 different aspects of the trip simultaneously, and spending more time and potentially money getting each individual bit as good as possible.

 

And yet, at the end of the day... A holiday is still just a holiday.

 

(The area this analogy falls down in is that packaged holidays are usually more expensive than self-planned holidays... But let's ignore that for now!)

 

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

 

 

Dean: I guess for the most part it's all down to whether you're wanting choice or not

I think these two posts begin to reveal the crux of the issue.

 

Yes, PC gaming gives you more choice. But what do you get with choice?

 

Risk.

 

I've chosen to game on console up till now to mitigate the risk of a sub-par gaming experience on PC. The surefire way to mitigate the risk of having problems on PC is to throw more money and time at it. Nowadays probably not a huge amount more - as you've both noted they're more out-the-box-able and accomodating than ever before. But it's still more time/effort than is necessary to play a good videogame and enjoy it. If you go for PC and don't drop a lot of time making sure everything is going to work, then you run the horrible, depressing risk of things not working or your experience being sub par.

 

I choose to game on console mainly because I've had emotionally draining and frankly upsetting experiences with PC, where my roullette roll with the risks of PC gaming turned up snake eyes (or just low numbers...), putting things in jeopardy and making the experience a very negative one. Consoles, despite their shortcomings and gradual move towards PC-like behaviour, remove 99% of the risk which you'd get going with PC. (Bear in mind the "100%" risk of using PC still isn't actually a large amount of risk. Consoles just negate most of it.)

Edited October 10, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Mr. GOH!]

I spent far more money and time dealing with console issues than with PC issues if you do not count actual initial PC building time (which has shrunk drastically in the past six years or so). I mean, I ended up buying the Xbox 360 twice and had to RMA it twice on top of that. 

[TheMightyEthan]

That's terrible luck.  I own two Xbox 360's, one of them a launch model, had to do one RMA (not the launch model, surprisingly, which still works fine).

[Mr. GOH!]

Yup; all this hemming and hawing about inconvenience and dealing with technical glitches boils down to anecdotes. 

[SomTervo]

True. Pure subjectivity. Though i'd say there's an argument that more risk is invoved in PC gaming simply because there are more factors involved. And tbh the only truly consistent console failures in history were X360 right?

 

Anyone know where we can get raw data on global hardware failures for all consoles and all pcs?

 

... Nope?

 

... No i thought not. Le sigh.

Edited October 10, 2014 by kenshi_ryden

[Mal]

So, I've been having a though experiment after skimming information (So I may be getting a wrong impression) about the Amiga. Might not really pertain to discussion here but I feel it fits best in this thread.

 

The Amiga is a PC but I got the feeling it is closer to the likes of a Mac than a (Windows) PC. Hell, the Amiga feels more like a console than a PC. The basic hardware for each release are more or less the same (So like Macs and sort of like consoles) but it can be upgraded like a Windows PC though it seems like options were rather limited. It was limited enough to force devs to really push the Amiga to its limits, kind of like how devs do with consoles. This became especially so after Commodore went bankrupted in 1994 which only left 3rd party expansions that only put out for another few years.

 

The Amiga thus might be the closest thing to an upgradable but rather closed (for upgradability) gaming platform (Something that I suggested and mused over a few times around here) I know of. It is as if you took a Mac and made it a compromising gap between console gaming and pure PC gaming.

 

I'm not entirely sure how something like the Amiga can work in today's gaming environment since things really changed since the 90's. In my opinion, it could ease the problem with aging hardware (consoles). Last generation was painful towards the end of its cycle (So yes, I would put the long lives of consoles as a negative). Though with devs basing quite a bit on the lowest common denominator (X1...)... eh. It's a crap shoot.