PC gaming, you say?

Ahhhh PC gaming.  I guess you could say it's the oldest of the bunch, although I think 'The Brown Box' (which was later turned into Magnavox Odyssey) is.  Whatever, not the point, today I'm going to express my opinion on PC gaming because I'm quite bored.
 
First off, I was a console gamer from pretty much age 4, PC gamer at around... well, age 12 or something.  So yeah, you can accuse me of being biased but I'm going to attempt to be as unbiased about my opinion as I possibly can (it's technically impossible to be completely unbiased, but one can still be 99% unbiased :D).
 
So PC gaming, yeah, it's popular.  Journalists and other people have speculated it to be a dying breed, but it still lives on.
 
I'll say it right now, I'm not a super big fan of PC gaming, for one big reason, and maybe a smaller one.
 
Big reason first: THE COST.  PC gaming is by far the most expensive nowadays.  Yeah, you can buy a high-end PC and use it for a few years fine, just have a slow progression of having to set the graphics lower... and lower... til the game is so slow it's practically unplayable.  Then, of course, you upgrade, which includes two options: buy/build a new PC, or upgrade your current hardware inside your current PC.  Both cost.  No matter how efficiently you do it, the price racks up.  Upgrading is cheaper, but I'd be surprised if one could upgrade to the latest hardware, spending anything under $150 (playing it safe here, but I would've said $200-$300).  Even if one upgrade doesn't stack up to the price of a gaming console, the amount of times you'll upgrade within any of the consoles' lifespan would definitely make the price higher than the gaming console.  PC gets free online too, yeah, unlike the Xbox 360 ('M$' is right!) but is it really worth it if you're on a budget?  In my opinion, no, I'd get a PS3 for that.  You see, it's all the little things you may need to buy that makes PC gaming so (possibly) expensive.
 
I will point out, however, that console gaming does have a few disadvantages.  For one, the graphics might be of a lesser level than the PC version of a game, or a PC exclusive for that matter.  Second, you don't get a mouse and keyboard, which many shooter players must admit is the best option for accuracy.  Third would be the community, games may get old but on PC, if the game is popular, you will be able to find some pretty sweet modifications of the game, such as 'Project Reality' for Battlefield 2 for example.  On top of that, it's more social, although Xbox LIVE and PSN do an admirable job - PC still is just, well, more social I guess, with clans just plain dominating the majority of online PC games (there are tons of clans for consoles too, but nothing compared to PC).
 
However, a smaller point as to why I prefer console gaming over PC is local multiplayer.  While some PC games have some sort of local multiplayer (this is excluding LAN), I don't ever recall a PC game having any kind of split-screen multiplayer.  I talked about split-screen before in my last blog, which was a while ago, so I do have a certain liking for it.  But the lack of it on PC games was an unfortunate inevitability and is at least 98% the case.  When there is a local multiplayer mode, it's usually turn-based.  Which works fine, but there's nothing like playing with friends, in real time, in the same room.  Of course this is obviously a preference of mine, but it is a reason.
 
I could list some more, such as how much I dislike the problems I've often had with games (or programs, in general), but that would be based off of personal experience and not facts (of course, this still included some opinions, but still).
 
So basically, this is how I think: PC gaming is for the people who are not afraid to spend their hard-earned cash on the thing quite often, spending time setting stuff up, and don't mind having an unfortunate lack of local multiplayer, while having the best graphics.  Whilst console gaming is for those whom want to spend money on the thing once and be set (excluding possible online fees, a la Xbox LIVE), have local multiplayer and just plain want to get to the game, no need to tweak settings or anything, and don't mind having lesser graphics.
 
Although in a nutshell it's simplicity vs. complexity, and I'm sure I missed a ton of points on both sides, AND this blog is probably still biased toward console gaming... thanks for reading anyway.

48 Comments
49 Comments
Edited by The_Speedstah

Ahhhh PC gaming.  I guess you could say it's the oldest of the bunch, although I think 'The Brown Box' (which was later turned into Magnavox Odyssey) is.  Whatever, not the point, today I'm going to express my opinion on PC gaming because I'm quite bored.
 
First off, I was a console gamer from pretty much age 4, PC gamer at around... well, age 12 or something.  So yeah, you can accuse me of being biased but I'm going to attempt to be as unbiased about my opinion as I possibly can (it's technically impossible to be completely unbiased, but one can still be 99% unbiased :D).
 
So PC gaming, yeah, it's popular.  Journalists and other people have speculated it to be a dying breed, but it still lives on.
 
I'll say it right now, I'm not a super big fan of PC gaming, for one big reason, and maybe a smaller one.
 
Big reason first: THE COST.  PC gaming is by far the most expensive nowadays.  Yeah, you can buy a high-end PC and use it for a few years fine, just have a slow progression of having to set the graphics lower... and lower... til the game is so slow it's practically unplayable.  Then, of course, you upgrade, which includes two options: buy/build a new PC, or upgrade your current hardware inside your current PC.  Both cost.  No matter how efficiently you do it, the price racks up.  Upgrading is cheaper, but I'd be surprised if one could upgrade to the latest hardware, spending anything under $150 (playing it safe here, but I would've said $200-$300).  Even if one upgrade doesn't stack up to the price of a gaming console, the amount of times you'll upgrade within any of the consoles' lifespan would definitely make the price higher than the gaming console.  PC gets free online too, yeah, unlike the Xbox 360 ('M$' is right!) but is it really worth it if you're on a budget?  In my opinion, no, I'd get a PS3 for that.  You see, it's all the little things you may need to buy that makes PC gaming so (possibly) expensive.
 
I will point out, however, that console gaming does have a few disadvantages.  For one, the graphics might be of a lesser level than the PC version of a game, or a PC exclusive for that matter.  Second, you don't get a mouse and keyboard, which many shooter players must admit is the best option for accuracy.  Third would be the community, games may get old but on PC, if the game is popular, you will be able to find some pretty sweet modifications of the game, such as 'Project Reality' for Battlefield 2 for example.  On top of that, it's more social, although Xbox LIVE and PSN do an admirable job - PC still is just, well, more social I guess, with clans just plain dominating the majority of online PC games (there are tons of clans for consoles too, but nothing compared to PC).
 
However, a smaller point as to why I prefer console gaming over PC is local multiplayer.  While some PC games have some sort of local multiplayer (this is excluding LAN), I don't ever recall a PC game having any kind of split-screen multiplayer.  I talked about split-screen before in my last blog, which was a while ago, so I do have a certain liking for it.  But the lack of it on PC games was an unfortunate inevitability and is at least 98% the case.  When there is a local multiplayer mode, it's usually turn-based.  Which works fine, but there's nothing like playing with friends, in real time, in the same room.  Of course this is obviously a preference of mine, but it is a reason.
 
I could list some more, such as how much I dislike the problems I've often had with games (or programs, in general), but that would be based off of personal experience and not facts (of course, this still included some opinions, but still).
 
So basically, this is how I think: PC gaming is for the people who are not afraid to spend their hard-earned cash on the thing quite often, spending time setting stuff up, and don't mind having an unfortunate lack of local multiplayer, while having the best graphics.  Whilst console gaming is for those whom want to spend money on the thing once and be set (excluding possible online fees, a la Xbox LIVE), have local multiplayer and just plain want to get to the game, no need to tweak settings or anything, and don't mind having lesser graphics.
 
Although in a nutshell it's simplicity vs. complexity, and I'm sure I missed a ton of points on both sides, AND this blog is probably still biased toward console gaming... thanks for reading anyway.

Edited by Farmer

In return for the slightly higher price (which turns out to be minor in the long run), you get choice of components and software and a multi-purpose workstation.

Edited by The_Speedstah
@Farmer: Note that I said PC gaming, not the entire PC.  "Multi-purpose workstation" is nice, but unrelated to gaming.
 
Yes, it may truly be minor in the long run, but if one wishes to keep it consistently up to date, I would be shocked if it still is.
 
It boils down to preference, though.  None is better than the other.
Posted by xyzygy

I really wish I could add PC to the list of platforms I game on. It's just that I agree with you about the price - it is so expensive to maintain. But when I get a good paying job and have extra money, one of the first things I want is a gaming PC because I want to play so many games that I missed out on - especially The Witcher. I was waiting for the 360 version but the development has been slowed on it, and now with the Witcher 2 in the makes, I dunno if it will see the light of day.  As a kid I used to play Diablo 2, Age of Empires, Descent, Hexen II, all these awesome games but it just got to a point where I realized that the new games that were coming out were wayyy too graphical for my little Pentium 2., 233 mhz 96 MB RAM PC. That's when I just said to myself, "I'll stick to my consoles." Someday though!

Posted by jkz

Also fan modifications.....aka "mods"

Posted by The_Speedstah
@jukezypoo: I mention mods. :P
Edited by Farmer
@The_Speedstah said:

" @Farmer: Note that I said PC gaming, not the entire PC.  "Multi-purpose workstation" is nice, but unrelated to gaming. Yes, it may truly be minor in the long run, but if one wishes to keep it consistently up to date, I would be shocked if it still is.  It boils down to preference, though.  None is better than the other. "

I feel that the two are inseparable. You own a PC, yes? Most people do. So if you're already going to buy a workstation, why not pay a bit more and convert it into a workstation and a gaming rig?
Now, as you say, it does come down to preference (I happen to own one of the current gen consoles, myself), but if cost is someone's only concern, I would vote PC.
Also, isn't it better than one has the choice to upgrade? You don't have to, but you can if you want. Damn sight better than a console, if you ask me.
Posted by The_Speedstah
@jukezypoo: Indeed, thou art forgiven.
Posted by jkz
@The_Speedstah said:
" @jukezypoo: I mention mods. :P "
Apologies, I was distracted by my cat marching across my keyboard and must have missed it
Posted by The_Speedstah
@Farmer: Yes, surely it's the best value, but here I'm talking strictly about gaming.  I will agree with that.  But as mentioned before, the requirement to consistently stay up with the best could be extremely expensive.
Edited by Farmer
@The_Speedstah said:

" @Farmer: Yes, surely it's the best value, but here I'm talking strictly about gaming.  I will agree with that.  But as mentioned before, the requirement to consistently stay up with the best could be extremely expensive. "

See edit of my last post, the delay for which I apologise.
Posted by The_Speedstah
@Farmer: Your points are good.  No, you don't have to upgrade, and indeed you can't with consoles, but the point still remains that if you do want to keep your PC updated, it'd be quite costly.
 
But in a nutshell, when it's boiled down, it's complexity vs. simplicity.
Posted by raddevon
@The_Speedstah: This is a very astute comparison of PC gaming to console. I would like to add that, while PC gaming is probably more expensive on the whole, PC games are often much cheaper than their console counterparts. To use a recent and profound example, Ghostbusters was $30 on PC at launch whereas the console versions were $60. This is slightly unfair since the PC version omitted multiplayer altogether. The standard price for new PC games is $10 less than console games, and this can add up after not long. This essentially equates to a free game for every five purchased on the PC. I have also noticed price drops seem to be sooner and more dramatic on PC. I recently picked up a brand new copy of Mirror's Edge on PC for $5. This game would still cost at least $20 on the consoles which means I got it for 25% the cost of the console version. Gogamer.com frequently sells PC games that are a year or two old for sub-$5.
 
I'm really hoping these cloud-based gaming services (OnLive, Gaikai, etc.) can bring hardcore PC gaming to the mainstream. There are some really distinct advantages that will probably never come to the consoles such as the aforementioned user mods and mouse/keyboard control scheme.
Edited by The_Speedstah
@raddevon: Great point.  Although Modern Warfare 2 has been priced at $60 for PC (rather controversially, might I add), I do hope that is not the future of pricing for the PC.
 
Cloud-based gaming does seem promising, but for some reason I don't see it being successful, it seems very vulnerable... I don't know, just my two cents.
Posted by Farmer
@raddevon said:
" @The_Speedstah: There are some really distinct advantages that will probably never come to the consoles such as the aforementioned user mods and mouse/keyboard control scheme. "
Although it is less unique now, thanks to the PS3, I would like to add the no-region-encoding argument.
Posted by raddevon
@The_Speedstah: Yes, I have heard about the MW2 pricing. Activision are doing their own thing right now. Once they have flooded the market with peripherals, $400 special editions, and 1,000 band-specific Guitar Hero boxes, they will decide maybe the consumer isn't stupid and isn't willing to pay far more for their products just because they are the world's largest publisher.
 
Sorry to crap in your thread. I could go on all day about Activision.
 
Back to cloud-based gaming: I don't necessarily think it will be a thundering success in the short-term, but I do think this is the inevitable next step for PC gaming. This will remove the hardware barrier. It's hard to sell someone who just wants to play a game on going out to buy a $100+ video card, cracking open their case, and putting it in. This would tear down that barrier. PC gaming needs that desperately.
Posted by raddevon
@Farmer: That is a nice perk. Even though the PS3 has this as well, it isn't quite as clean. I can take any PC game from any region and, assuming I meet the requirements (and there aren't weird driver issues), I can install that game and play. If I'm on the PS3, I still can't import games from a region that uses the PAL TV standard unless I have an HDTV. Even if I do have an HDTV, I won't be able to buy additional content for a game from another region without a credit card from that region. PS3 is a step in the right direction, but we still aren't all the way there on the consoles.
Posted by trophyhunter

I really don't like PC gameing I think it is in fact dead. Also the things PC gamers put up with and still call it the best platform is insane to me . well if you want to play the latest games you have to either buy a $2,000 machine or buy a $500 machine and buy $100 parts for it every two months. Then once you have your machine you have to pay pretty much the same price for games as console users do. 
 
Now here is the biggest reason to ever use a console over a PC ever. With a console game you put the game in and you play it, it just fucking works. Now with a PC you put a game in it installs after 20 minutes of installing and $50 bucks for the game you find out that it won't play without some $100 part, or its really jerky and slow, or the sound does not work for some reason, or it crashes for no reason.
 
Then you have the PC's gameing selection which is awful. You have the choice of console ports, MMOs, The witcher or cryisis.
The big thing PC fanboys like to tout is they get slightly better graphic on the console ports, which really the only way you could tell is to have them running side by side. The last thing I'd like to say if you payed more than $200 for a PC and your playing console ports with a 360 controller I give up on you.

Posted by The_Speedstah
@raddevon said:
" @The_Speedstah: Back to cloud-based gaming: I don't necessarily think it will be a thundering success in the short-term, but I do think this is the inevitable next step for PC gaming. This will remove the hardware barrier. It's hard to sell someone who just wants to play a game on going out to buy a $100+ video card, cracking open their case, and putting it in. This would tear down that barrier. PC gaming needs that desperately. "
Perhaps I misheard, but isn't Cloud-based gaming reliant upon internet servers?  That sounds incredibly vulnerable to me, it could all go bad if they crash.
Edited by Al3xand3r

PC gaming isn't that expensive at all. You can get great rigs with a price similar to the initial price of a PS3. A perfect rig? No, but sure as hell better than any console. And you don't need to upgrade that much more than you do consoles. Maybe one cheap upgrade of a specific part, then a bigger upgrade around the time you'd get a new console anyway. At least that's how I've been doing it so far and always able to play the latest games, perhaps not with the highest settings when it's getting closer to upgrading time, but still, the positives to me outweigh the negatives. It's one of the reasons I don't find much value in owning a PS360, because I get most of their multiplatform titles (playing RE5 and Batman lately even), and the PC has its own share of exclusives, and many different aspects to gaming like the more prelevant independent games (which tend to not need great specs either so almost anyone can play them), and several whole genres that are rarely seen on consoles, coupled with the best control scheme for many other genres. That is why I have a PC + Wii combo, imo the best of both worlds, as Wii games tend to be exclusives too, while it's also more Japan-centric when the PC is mostly all about Western games.

And all that stuff about needing patches to fix bugs and shit, meh, consoles get that more and more all the time too now. Look @ reports of how Lost Planet 2 runs on the PlayStation 3 for one example. Shoddy development and premature releases aren't the fault of the platforms, it just happens, and now it doesn't only happen to PC. Enjoy your new gen. Oh well. And lol @ people proclaiming it dead because they aren't into it.

Cloud gaming is a whole other can of worms I won't open, other than to say whether it happens or  (most likely) not, I'm a PC gamer anyway.

Posted by Farmer
@trophyhunter said:
" I really don't like PC gameing I think it is in fact dead. Also the things PC gamers put up with and still call it the best platform is insane to me . well if you want to play the latest games you have to either buy a $2,000 machine or buy a $500 machine and buy $100 parts for it every two months. "
That is simply ridiculous.
Posted by eroticfishcake

Even though I'm more a PC gamer I agree with pretty much everything that you've said. Which is why I bought a PS3, it's just simpler. Plus there isn't any new games for the PC recently.

Posted by raddevon
@The_Speedstah: It would suck if they crashed, but your machine could just as easily crash when you're playing a game locally. I don't see it as being any more vulnerable. Both local or remote play would be capable of a crash. Chances are, the companies getting paid to provide this service would have tested their machines better than we have our Frankenstein monster home-built machines.
Posted by The_Speedstah
@raddevon: Well it's a matter of opinion.  Based on my own personal observations: I've seen servers (whether extremely secure, or quite faulty) crash more often than my gaming consoles/PC.
Posted by Al3xand3r

Most all online games rely on servers nowadays, with the prime example being the MMORPG genre and no they don't crash often.

Posted by Diamond

I don't think we really need this kind of debate thread here or anywhere.  The PC versus console debate is pretty well defined, and noone is going to change their opinions.
 
To me console gaming is about more than simplicity and costs, but also the benefits of standardization, and by far the current state of game development itself (which is highly focused on consoles).

Posted by The_Speedstah

I do not mean to start a flame war, I apologize if it ends up being that way.  But this is just a personal blog, (posted to general discussion forum as well) expressing my views of PC gaming, etc.

Edited by MrKlorox

TBF the mouse is eventually going to get outclassed by later generation pointing methods. I don't think either Sony's Motion Controller or Project Natal will be accurate enough without better handheld components.
 
For example the WiiMotion+ adds a LOT more precise cursor aiming control by helping process the pointer's actual position in addition to the IR camera. MS would have to issue a new controler to work with Natal to get halfway close to the desired precision as cameras can only go so far. Even so it would have to have the stick, trigger, shoulder, and face buttons of a regular controller (for each hand) to actually beocme adopted as a primary input device. It eould also finally allow proper dual-wielding dual-aiming of true akimbo.

Edited by Al3xand3r
@MrKlorox said:

"For example the WiiMotion+ adds a LOT more precise cursor aiming control by helping process the pointer's actual position in addition to the IR camera. "

No, it doesn't. The precision without M+ is spot-on, and no game so far attempts to use the M+ in such a manner. In fact, even Red Steel 2, which will utilise it for aiming, will only do so for the cases you happen to aim beyond the point the sensor bar is visible to the remote, as in any other case the remote's camera by itself is perfectly (and more) capable than that.

Visual proofs, attempt (and for the majority of you, aside from oldschool quake players, FAIL) to follow this guy's skill with your mouse.
Edited by MrKlorox
@Al3xand3r said:

" @MrKlorox said:

"For example the WiiMotion+ adds a LOT more precise cursor aiming control by helping process the pointer's actual position in addition to the IR camera. "

No, it doesn't. The precision without M+ is spot-on, and no game so far attempts to use the M+ in such a manner. In fact, even Red Steel 2, which will utilise it for aiming, will only do so for the cases you happen to aim beyond the point the sensor bar is visible to the remote, as in any other case the remote's camera by itself is perfectly (and more) capable than that.
I'll try to find a link, but I'm pretty sure I saw something that said it did. Only in games that make use of it of course. For example in Resort's menu I can sit anywhere in my living room and have perfect accuracy in the corners of the screen whereas in the Wii system menu it skips all around and had trouble finding where I'm trying to aim it unless I'm centered.
 
And what do you mean by spot on? The resolution is only 1024x768@100hz. The targets are usually pretty big for a reason and it's not just SDtv.
Posted by emkeighcameron

My PC can beat your consoles ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Except Tuesdays, that's when it defrags. Or Wednesdays, that's when it virus scans. Or Fridays, because that's me-time.
 
Come to think of it, Friday time on the PC pretty much makes all other consoles obsolete. 

Edited by Al3xand3r

If you do those things when your PC tells you to, than when you WANT, and it takes a day on top of that, it sounds like user error I'm afraid.
 
@MrKlorox said:

@Al3xand3r said:

 @MrKlorox said:

For example the WiiMotion+ adds a LOT more precise cursor aiming control by helping process the pointer's actual position in addition to the IR camera.

No, it doesn't. The precision without M+ is spot-on, and no game so far attempts to use the M+ in such a manner. In fact, even Red Steel 2, which will utilise it for aiming, will only do so for the cases you happen to aim beyond the point the sensor bar is visible to the remote, as in any other case the remote's camera by itself is perfectly (and more) capable than that.

Visual proofs, attempt (and for the majority of you, aside from oldschool quake players, FAIL) to follow this guy's skill with your mouse.
I'll try to find a link, but I'm pretty sure I saw something that said it did. Only in games that make use of it of course. For example in Resort's menu I can sit anywhere in my living room and have perfect accuracy in the corners of the screen whereas in the Wii system menu it skips all around and had trouble finding where I'm trying to aim it unless I'm centered.  And what do you mean by spot on? The resolution is pretty low. That accounts a lot for accuracy.
The Wii remote's camera has a larger resolution than the Wii even outputs. 1024x768. That's not small, and in fact much larger than the PlayStationEye's (640x480 max). So, no, it's not "pretty low".
Edited by MrKlorox
@Al3xand3r:  I'd point you to my revised post. And PS EYE is a joke. I also like how you felt the need to re-add the video.
Edited by Al3xand3r

Well it's a new page so yes, I wanted to add it for those that won't bother looking back. I read your revised post and wait for the source, because in my experience the sensor bar is still utilised for WSR, if I put the Wii in the LR in bright day time with the curtains open I still have to adjust the sensitivity settings in the Wii system menu to get better recognition of the sensor bar. Still, even if it uses it like that, I stand by what I said myself anyway and don't believe it offers an advantage for when the sensor bar is actually visible to the remote. Outside that, sure.

I responded to your point about the camera still, my source is Johnny Chung Lee:
The wii remote contains a 1024x768 camera with built-in hardware for IR blob tracking of upto 4 points at 100Hz. This significantly outperforms any $40 webcam I'm aware of.

Posted by BaconGames

A lot of valid points and counterpoints presented but there's one thing that has yet to be addressed - hardware failure.
 
I'm not picking anyone particular but ultimately when a component for a console fails, what is one to do?  Do they buy a new one?  Send it in?  If they do how much they lookin' to pay?  What about if they get the problem again?  There's no control on the user's end if they legally want their console working again.  For a PC, the diagnostics can be done and a new replacement part can be found, bought, and used.
 
Of course the counterpoint being viruses, which are unique to PC's which consoles don't have.  I don't really see PC's having any more or less merit than console gaming.  I just happen to be a sole PC gamer due to budget and the fact that I did go the "might as well get a gaming PC if I'm going to have a PC anyway" route.  This PC does everything I could want entertainment wise.  Given the conditions it could be my gaming, TV, internet, movie, music, editing, and "pleasure" center at any given moment.  In reality all I had to do was pay an extra 300-500 than normal to get it gaming and really editing-worthy and how is that really different from a console considering the net savings from PC games being cheaper.
 
It just confuses me every time people say PC gaming is dead when they obviously wrote it off from the beginning.

Edited by MrKlorox

Of course the IR bar is still utilized. I'm saying the WM+ orientation helps it remember its position when the IR gets disrupted. And I witness this phenomenon in darkness. -- ah edits
 
No link yet.
 
So we know the Wiimote can track more than two lights, but do games make use of this? Will two sensor bars stacked help?

Edited by Al3xand3r

No, I don't think so, it only shows 2 lights in the sensitivity settings.

I guess mine just doesn't get disrupted as you call it hence I witness no improvement with WSR than in the standard system menu.

Edit: I'm an idiot, of course it shows 2 lights, I only have 1 sensor bar :-P

I don't think games utilise it still, they'd probably just get confused and bork up if they see more. Like it happens for some people if they have lights and such around their gaming area, like a christmas tree. The hardware can do 4 but the software is only optimised for 2.

Posted by HitmanAgent47

A hdtv isn't cheap, same with a home theater systems if you want to enjoy console games at a measly 720p. Nothing is cheap.

Posted by MarcusOfLycia

Some of the reasons you mentioned are good for not jumping into PC gaming, but I've found the benefits outweigh the flaws. I can play any game ever made for a PC on my machine (with a little emulation, and some playing around with it). I can also do more than play games; I can create my own, mod existing games, and download other people's work. My computer cost around $800, and is a great gaming rig, but could be built today (same parts) for about $600. While its expensive, most people buy a computer for more than just gaming, so its not too much of a stretch to say anyone could afford it.
 
But my favorite part about computer gaming is the control I have. The fact its all my stuff, my hardware that I put together, that I can upgrade at any time, and that I have complete access to. On a console, its sort of like a black box; what I can put it on it and what I can take out of it is limited to what the makers of the system say I can. I own a PS3, and while I enjoy it an awful lot, its very limited in comparison with my PC. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I hate the idea of cloud computing, even in the context of games. I want to own the progress I've made in games, and I want to continue playing those games, far after the companies that created them are bankrupt and nonexistent, or are no longer offering their services. I'm not into MMO's for that very reason: eventually all my work is erased from existence.

Edited by MrKlorox

Perhaps I have some other IR source in the room that I'm not aware of that's throwing it off. Really wanting a pair of NVG right about now. 
 
Either way, if this phenomenon isn't just coincidental I hope all future Wii games come with base support for ah... orientation recall?
 
The Sony Motion controller looks like it might be pretty accurate for a 480p120 camera and it also contains an accelerometer/angular rate sensor (WM+ component) combo. And that's almost entirely how it aims. The cam is just used to track the position of the IR on the controller around the room, opposite from the Wiimote which uses it for aiming. You don't aim out the light concentration out of the top of the glowing ball like a laser. That should help prove that the WM+ can indeed provide orientation information to calculate into pointing, should the software make use of it.

Edited by Al3xand3r

That camera is only 120hz in 320x240 mode, in 640x480 it's 60hz. The Wii remote's is 1024x768 @ 100hz as said already. But Sony's doesn't have two sources for pointing like the remote utilises, it only has one, the lightbulb, and then the rest is possibly up to the motion sensors as you say. Still, from the demos seen, to me it seems they have yet to program a good pointing function on the software side, if it's as possible as it seems to be in theory. In all the demos they showed where you had to point to things, like to aim a gun, or select units in the RTS demo, he was actually waving his arm around and the software seemed to simply track the position of the light. This can also be seen to a lesser extent in the recent Little Big Planet video. I do not know if by the time it's released they have refined the function, but for now to me it seems they're not capable of offering the pointing the Wii remote offers, where you can just rest it in your lap and point the cursor with just slight wrist movements.

This gif is a comparison of pointing with the wii remote versus the wand. He's watching the Sony demonstration on his Wii. In the picture-in-picture window you can see the exagerated movements the Sony dude does to point the cursor and select the units in the RTS demo, and then on top of it you can see the wii remote used to point the hand cursor. I hope you understand what I mean, it's a good comparison as you can clearly see the difference in the type of motion required to achieve the same result.



In another Sony demo, obvious lag is also visible, so I dunno how it will work out in the end:

I think we're hijacking this thread >_>
Edited by MrKlorox

I saw an interview where the motion controller dude said new ones can do 120hz at 480p.
 
Yeah but you saw the same type of overreaction in movements with the Wii remote in its early videos and you well know that doesn't take wild gestures. Even if that's how moving a cursor around works, we're also talking about aiming. In the E3 video we saw it go into a very shaky first person mode. Surely this couldn't have been done with the lightbulb alone. 
 
edit: you're right, we are. Let's just agree that future pointing controls will be more accurate than they are today, and at some point will surpass the accuracy of a mouse for action games.

Posted by TheGremp

It may cost more, but it's worth it if you ask me.  The controls are much more natural, the graphics are better, and the community is generally more friendly, depending on the games you play.

Posted by iam3green

i started pc gaming around 05. before that i use to play consoles. now i play on both of them. something that i like about PC gaming is that older games are still popular. it is nice to have mouse and keyboard as they feel great. 
 
there use to be split screen on PC. this is about when windows 95 was around. i remember me and my friend playing need for speed, idk which one split screen. he would have the arrow keys i would have W,A,S,D. now, games are more technical so there couldn't really be split screen.

Edited by Al3xand3r
@MrKlorox said:

"In the E3 video we saw it go into a very shaky first person mode. Surely this couldn't have been done with the lightbulb alone.   edit: you're right, we are. Let's just agree that future pointing controls will be more accurate than they are today, and at some point will surpass the accuracy of a mouse for action games. "

Yes, but as you said very shaky. Ok let's do that :-P

Or maybe that they will "equal" it, I'm sure mouse tech won't remain static, and we already have some with ridiculous resolution.
Edited by MrKlorox
@Al3xand3r said:

" @MrKlorox said:

"In the E3 video we saw it go into a very shaky first person mode. Surely this couldn't have been done with the lightbulb alone.   edit: you're right, we are. Let's just agree that future pointing controls will be more accurate than they are today, and at some point will surpass the accuracy of a mouse for action games. "
Yes, but as you said very shaky. Ok let's do that :-P "
It would be better if it had the aid of an infrared aiming function to matrix (eh whatever) with for a smooth accurate product like the Wiimote camera with WM+ combo.
Posted by Meteora

I prefer my console for gaming, but PC gaming is always nice. Its just that consoles are a bit more simple, the fact that you can bring a game to another friends place and play without having to wait for installations is a nice point. For dumb people like me its also a benefit that we don't need to do all the research on parts we need to get just to upgrade our gamin rig and check the system requirements. Also some of us aren't really graphic freaks and go with sufficient on the consoles, as well as striving to push for 60 fps at the expense of fiddling around with the graphics for a balance of high performance. There's also rumble support on your controller (depends on which console and so on). Also we're getting motion control support on all three consoles in the near future, if you really dig motion control.
 
That being said, the PC is more flexible and customizable than your given console, but its not my cup of tea.

Edited by MrKlorox
@Meteora said:

" Also we're getting motion control support on all three consoles in the near future, if you really dig motion control. "

I know this thread is about gaming and we haven't seen the extent of what the drivers can do, but it has been mentioned that MS is prepping a PC interface for Natal. It might just be pointing, but that could provide a 'virtual' touch screen effect to games that are point and click.
 
Also I don't think consoles will ever get something this cool unless Activision decides COD needs a perhipheral. 
  
 
Posted by Psyx2

For me, console gaming can be even more expensive. I for one don't have my own HDTV, or even a LCD TV - I have a really bad CRT TV that randomly turns itself off, or tries to give me a seizure. I would like to buy a PS3, but buying a decent TV and a PS3 along with some games would be very pricey as opposed to a cheap upgrade of my PC and games that cost less than console games.
 
People tend to exaggerate how much it costs to upgrade their PC. You can build your own PC for pretty cheap - on Christmas I got up to date for only $200. And since I've always had a computer, buying a nice screen isn't an issue. You don't have to upgrade every 2 months - that's a ridiculous claim.
I don't upgrade my PC just for gaming. I upgrade it so I can be multitask and use newer programs with less slowdown, watch HD video (I watch more stuff on my computer than on actual TV), but if I can include gaming in that upgrade, why not? It's really not as expensive as people say it is, unless you buy pre-built computers for $1000 when you could build it yourself for way less than that.
 
Yes there is the simplicity in console gaming, and I appreciate that. But I like having a choice in my hardware, so I know that it should work right, instead of getting a 360 and having it RROD. That would suck, especially if its warranty expired and I had to pay to get it fixed only to have it happen again.
 
No there's not a lot of games coming out for it, so if you're a really hardcore gamer, it might be more wise to stick with your consoles. But there's more games coming out for consoles than I would even be able to buy, so buying the few PC games that come out every year that I care about is good enough for me. I don't buy a $60 game every other week like so many people here do.
 
That's just how I feel about it. There's really not much point in comparing consoles to PC's - if you're into consoles, that's cool, I like consoles too. But PC gaming isn't going anywhere. It'll always be a viable option for gaming, people will always be playing older games, and people will always be making games for the PC ON a PC.