[Willakan]

DRM is overstated, PC game compatibility is massively overstated and most everything gets at least a competent PC port. Price - you got me there.
But we do get much prettier graphics and lots of dedicated servers. Besides, Mouse>Joypad for competitive FPSs, which seem to be dominating multiplayer gaming at the moment, with the exception of titles like Minecraft and Terraria - PC exclusives anyway. (various spinoffs aside).
 

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

TheKisho:
 
For controls, what about genres outside of FPS and RTS? For example, Assassin's Creed controls like a 3PS (Third Person Stabber, haha) and it has online multiplayer. For that matter, Assassin's Creed also took a long time to come to PC, which means that console gaming would make more sense in instances like that. 
 
I'm also curious as to why multitasking on your gaming rig--while gaming--is a benefit. Wouldn't that slow the system down, potentially? And what kind of game could you play that would afford you the loss of concentration by multitasking? I might back up my laptop while playing Xbox, but that doesn't make the Xbox any less of a system to play on...
 
And lastly, the graphics upgrade is a double-edged sword. Everyone ought to acknowledge that. Console games will run without users needing to spend on, research and install upgrades; at the same time they're also stuck with whatever level of quality they get (save few instances where games are patched to resolve load times and other bugs). On the flip side PC gamers have a chance to improve their experience by upgrading--but upgrading always costs a person time and money. I don't know how often a PC needs upgrading and how much it costs, but maybe this is where PC gamers can chime in?

On the controls they suck for pretty much everything I was to use them for.  FPS, RPGs, Arcade games (Fighting, Beat'em Ups), Menus.  I hope you didn't mean RTS, I don't know of any current generation console RTS but that is a PC only genre.  I dislike the broken D-Pad, and the hard to controls sticks.  I also found the 360 controller works better on PC then it does on the 360 [It's not completely better on PC but man what are they doing on the 360 to make it suck so badly].  I use the 360 control on PC for emulation time to time, it seems to handle nicer there (the sticks control better).  I should note that I'm not a hardcore competitive gamer, just a casual gamer who gets frustrated at slow, laggy, sloppy controls that are hard to get them to do what you want.  I cannot comment on AC, I've never really be into or interested in it.  I think it was trying to be a third person stealth game but just dropped the ball.  I can be patient enough to wait for games to finally get a PC release.  I'm not and never been temped to get a console version of a game if I knew the PC version was in the works.  Did that game really need muliplayer? I feel there are just games that don't need muliplayer and just shouldn't.  And there is other games I know which have single player which is the same as multiplayer which was added because, I guess you cannot sell a multiplayer only game, that just should have single player mode.
 
Because now days processors are so fast and we have enough RAM it real doesn't matter.  You'll never really feel a performance hit or see one unless you are running a 1080p flash video or two, and/or encoding video in the background.  With today's dual, tri, and quad core CPUs it's not a big of a difference as the days of when we only had a single CPU and core.  Mostly I do it when I'm playing a multiplayer game I know I'm going to die and have to wait.  Gives me something to do.  There is times I've done it in single player games as well.  It won't really pull you out of the game, long as it's not the main focus of your time.  I use to use two computers but found it was an unnecessary waste power and added to the room heat. I could just do it on one with no noticeable downside.
 
I've recently upgraded from a ATI HD2600XT which I love and adore to a ATI HD6770.  It didn't cost me much time 5-10mins which I would of had would of wasted that time anyway on something else.  As for cost you can spend anything from $50-$600 depending on what you really want.  I go mid-range $100-$200 range and I upgrade when I feel I want an upgrade.  I went 4 years between cards, between two cards I spend the same as current 250GB Xbox 360 S, and with both cards games look better than it did on my 360.

 

[funniecow]

I think where a lot of the argument between console and PC has been hashed out over and over.  While it is true that console provides the ease of just plug and play.  Because there is only one standardized system, the game is limited, by either player count, mod possibilities, etc.  But the trade off of PC is that if you're computer savvy you can generally make a potent gaming rig for under 1k.  I can understand that buying a 1k system is very expensive compared to a 100-200 system.  And generally unless you're well off or will use your computer for graphic work, its not well advised to sink this money into a hobby; but hey this hobby keeps you sane.
 
As for a headset system, most gamers online do have headsets, and a lot of the new games for PC has a built in game chat system.  Sure some of them are mic orientated, but all of them has at least chat system.
 
As for those people with PC's and can't upgrade, you could try to see if you can use a cheap version of flash memory for your comp.  Instead of buying an all out SSD, buy a 4gig SD and hook it up to your system .http://gizmodo.com/5834319/how-to-buy-a-hard-drive-an-essential-guide.
 
As for fighting games, there are PC ports and you can customize your character and game in general. 

 

[koolkat]

FPS on PC.
RPGs on PC.
 
Racing/sports/fight games on consoles. 

 

[Eric_C]

^ I'm sorry, could you be specific with regard to the fighting games that allow you to customise your character, and how these ports differ from console versions? Aside from appearance, is there anything that they add to the PC port?

 

[TheKisho]

I don't see why fighting games wouldn't be the best on Windows PCs.  It would be the most direct port of the game.  Most if not all modern arcade machines are Windows XP embedded systems (A few lines of code or a patch will make them [arcade games] run on a Windows computer natively).  Sadly the console gets more fighting games as ports, but I'm just saying it wouldn't be hard to release on them PC.  I would opt for the Windows port when ever possible.  There isn't may big name arcade fighters on PC outside Street Fighter.  (I would love a King of Fighters PC release or a few other Japanese fighters).

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Far as I see it, consoles provide a superior option for most gamers.

* Pricing - Consoles are pretty inexpensive these days. Not so much for gaming PCs.
* AAA Gaming - Consoles dominate AAA. PCs ports are often late, poor, or nonexistant.
* Japan - Less of a factor now, but Japanese gaming remains resolutely focused on consoles.
* Consistency - Console games always work on your setup. Not so much with PC games.
* DRM - Console DRM is mostly transparent to the user. PC DRM can be extremely invasive.
* Experience - Comfy couch + big screen + surround sound > Chair + monitor + headphones

Pc Pricing of games is cheaper and building a good system capable of ruining nearly all games isn't anywhere near as expensive as some try and make out.
AAA titles also exist on pc as exclusives though not as in great a number.  However I would take exclusives like Crysis and Witcher 2 (though it is now being ported to 360) anyday over most console exclusives.  Also many great games aren't AAA titles and are often pc exclusive.
Japan - don't know enough to comment but I'm happy to take your word on it
Consistency - agreed, though 99% of so called issues are just that someone hasn't kept there drivers up to date
DRM- not really an issue from i've experienced, though I have heard horror stories mostly involving ubisoft
Experience - you can play pc games with a controller just like you do a console, and you can also play it on your tv.  If anything pc has the advantage here as it gives you the choice.
 

 

[marvin]

1. PC games are less expensive, but console games can be freely resold. Pretty much a wash here unless you buy well past launch.
2. Even if you spot the PC $10/game, it's still tough to bridge the ~ $400 differential between a console and a competent gaming PC.
3. Far as AAA exclusives, I'd feel pretty good in pitting Red Dead Redemption and Demon's Souls against Crysis and Witcher 2.
4. Constant on internet DRM is thankfully restricted to Ubisoft for now, but will be in Diablo III. Could be the start of a bad trend.
5. Playing PC games on the TV can be done, but it's pretty rare. It's just too much of a compromise in utility without an (expensive) gaming laptop.

 
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of PC gaming and it's generally my lead platform. But when it comes to which platform is better for the average gamer, I think that consoles have a pretty solid advantage.

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

1. PC games are less expensive, but console games can be freely resold. Pretty much a wash here unless you buy well past launch.
2. Even if you spot the PC $10/game, it's still tough to bridge the ~ $400 differential between a console and a competent gaming PC.
3. Far as AAA exclusives, I'd feel pretty good in pitting Red Dead Redemption and Demon's Souls against Crysis and Witcher 2.
4. Constant on internet DRM is thankfully restricted to Ubisoft for now, but will be in Diablo III. Could be the start of a bad trend.
5. Playing PC games on the TV can be done, but it's pretty rare. It's just too much of a compromise in utility without an (expensive) gaming laptop.

 
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of PC gaming and it's generally my lead platform. But when it comes to which platform is better for the average gamer, I think that consoles have a pretty solid advantage.

I agree with all your points except the last, more or less any recent decent gpu will have a hdmi out, so it's just a matter of a very minor amount of effort.  As for exclusives, it is all opinion and I think Witcher 2 is probably the best game I have ever played so of course prefer current pc exclusives.  Some games also fell completely different for the better and are almost new games in of themselves due to the control difference (dragon age and deus ex human revolution come to mind immediatly).
 
I do see what people like in consoles and I own over 10 consoles, however when consoles reach the five year mark they really need to be replaced otherwise the stagnate the industry far to much (as is occuring now).
 

 

[jeezus]

Quote:

I have read this many times, but never with a good explanation. "everyone else has it" isn't one. 
 
 

because on xbl you can be in a party with several people all in different games while on ps3 you cannot. on xbox you can see what all your friends are doing online even from your pc or cell phone. xbl is more secure. xbl gets game addons before ps3 or pc at least on some games COD being the big one.
 
xbox is just overall better than ps3 when it comes to the social aspect which is very important to me. i am always in parties with at least 3 of my friends and we are not always playing the same game so ps3 is just not an option for me or anyone who likes to use online as a place to chat with friends as well as game.
 
yes ps3 does have better graphics but you only notice it when compared side by side. yes ps3 is free online but i dont mind paying a couple bucks a month for a better social experience. if you play by yourself ps3 is the way to go.

 

[Eric_C]

Actually, if anyone's interested in saving money on Xbox Live Gold subscriptions, I've found that buying Microsoft Points from retailers (as opposed to direct from MS) tends to get XBL 3-month subscription codes packaged in with the MS Points cards. Since there's a lot of great games on XBL these days (SF3:3SO, Bastion, Trenched) and a bunch more to come (Crimson Alliance, Guardian Heroes), it just makes sense to stock up on Points anyway.
 
So, that effectively gets you free Xbox Live Gold subscription.