What's up with the PC gaming industry?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

you play? no way. I've got all but the Breueaut ot whatever it's spelled. oh and the 0/400

i bet the old guard mostly has all of them

I like the early war planes the most. I play once in a while. I'm kinda getting back into it again. What I really want is a good Vietnam era sim or Korean War air combat sim.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I like the early war planes the most. I play once in a while. I'm kinda getting back into it again. What I really want is a good Vietnam era sim or Korean War air combat sim.

i wanna see korea actually.

and if you're on I'll fly wing with you any day. I too like the E.III and the DH2

[Anthony W.]

What I've noticed is that people just don't want to deal with the "complexities" of a computer.

Even tho computer games and sims are almost ALWAYS more immersing, people just don't want to take the time of actually setting up a good system

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

What I've noticed is that people just don't want to deal with the "complexities" of a computer.

Even tho computer games and sims are almost ALWAYS more immersing, people just don't want to take the time of actually setting up a good system

Well if you think about it, it's almost cheaper to go with a console (f.ex.: PS3 which costs what, 450 for a high end model?) compared to buying an entire new setup for a gaming rig which can be quite costly.

[Arclight]

To be fair though, the concept of a gaming rig costing tons of money doesn't really hold true anymore, and is becoming less so with each generation.

My current CPU cost 250,- at the time, and wasn't even top of the line then. Now you can get an i5 2500k for 200,-, which is both significantly faster than my Q9550 and higher up the ladder to boot. Same deal with my current GTX460 compared to my old 8800GTS.


On top of that, PC offers a lot more; I'd say the higher price for the system is justified. And games are cheaper because there are no platform fees, which is a nice bonus and might actually make it cheaper in the long run depending on how much games you buy.

[Krauter]

I'm definitely not saying PCs aren't worth their weight and then some, I'd much rather shell out money for a new PC then for a new Console, but from a purely gaming point of view, aren't consoles cheaper as a new game system (PlayStation, PS2, PS3 for example) comes out every what, 10 years or so? Compared to PC upgrades being required as games get more and more graphically and power intensive to use? SH5 being one example?

[Highbury]

I know what you mean when it comes to Madden 12 McBee. Yes there are alot of PC games still through DLC but EA Sports has given it up all together.

I played the EA hockey alot more then the football, but back in the 90's the PC version was the premier version and the consoles (which at the time were NES and Sega Genesis) got a massively scaled back version. Worse graphics, no ability to run a full season, etc. Then a few years ago I read that Madden would be discontinued on PC, and NHL and FIFA titles would no longer be developed for PC. So while the consoles got new game engines and features, the PC versions just got new rosters for an old game. For the 2011 year they cancelled all PC sports titles.

The weak excuse I was told was that the PC games are more modable. So someone with year X can download rosters and graphics to make it virtually the same as year Y. Something an Xbox cannot do. I am not sure if that is true, and really it doesn't matter if it is. The fact is that PC sports gaming is indeed dead or dying.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by Krauter

I'm definitely not saying PCs aren't worth their weight and then some, I'd much rather shell out money for a new PC then for a new Console, but from a purely gaming point of view, aren't consoles cheaper as a new game system (PlayStation, PS2, PS3 for example) comes out every what, 10 years or so?

Never said they weren't. It's just that an argument leveled against PC gaming for a long time is the prohibitive cost. That is holding less and less true as technology progresses. Not saying it's cheaper, just that that gap is getting smaller, to the point where you can make up the difference by getting games cheaper. PC games tend to go for 40-50, while console games go for 60,-. Over the course of 5 years, depending on how many games you buy, it can even out.

Compared to PC upgrades being required as games get more and more graphically and power intensive to use? SH5 being one example?

I still don't understand where this notion of SH5 being that demanding came from. I had my 8800 at the time and that ran it just fine. Yes, older cards had trouble with it, but something like the 7600, from the previous generation, was ancient even then, being released in 2006.

The upgrading is a bit of a mixed bag. If you buy a good system it will last you 4-5 years. If all you do is play console ports, you shouldn't have too much trouble getting it to last as long as the consoles it was competing with at the time. Upgrading is really only "required" to keep up with the latest in PC gaming, and with almost all games being released on all platforms nowadays, those PC exclusives that might prompt an upgrade are few and far between.

I went to my current card and CPU not to play console ports: I'm pretty sure my old 8800 and dual-core could still run Battlefield 3 on the same level as a 360 or PS3. I upgraded for things like Shogun 2 and Arma 2.


All things considered, if you buy a good rig you only "need" to swap out a graphics card after 4-5 years and you're good to go for another 4-5. After that a new PC would be a good idea though.