Support NeoGAF

[ClaptoVaughn]

i mean if we're getting all technical in this thread u don't need to pay for online on any of the consoles :^)

How do you not have to pay to play games online with consoles?

I don't own either of them but what are the Xbox Live and PS4 subscriptions people pay for then? Just additional online storage?

 

[Fat4all]

Marketing exists for console games as well.

I'm really confused.

 

[Envelope]

How do you not have to pay to play games online with consoles?

I don't own either of them but what are the Xbox Live and PS4 subscriptions people pay for then? Just additional online storage?

wait, who said anything about playing games online? :^)

Marketing exists for console games as well.

I'm really confused.

pc marketing makes people spend more by spending less though! don't you see?

 

[Darryl M R]

Marketing exists for console games as well.

I'm really confused.

The marketing on PC is the same as the marketing on consoles, so I don't your point.

Marketing includes pricing. PC sellers have more control on pricing therefore they have different marketing tactics than consoles. Do you disagree with this statement? Also marketing is not consistent throughout. Do you believe consoles players and pc players are marketed at the same way? Because in this thread we all agreed that third party resellers sell game for less. And we mentioned that this helps them bring in customers to shop from them than others. This is marketing.

Discounting multiple games/items to convince gamers/consumers to purchase more than what the originally wanted is also marketing.

brah if u wanted to make a "lol backlogs" thread just do it

someone else has prolly already done it tho

I actually wanted to have a discussion though. .

 

[FunkyMunkey]

you save a lot of money by having a ton of different retailers (and online download distributors) offering even brand new games at heavy discounts

not having to subscribe for online

and you get to keep your games literally forever, across all pc's you may use/build

there's a higher initial cost than consoles (which isn't even that much higher these days compared to consoles when they are first released) but that extra cost is more than made up for as you start to build a library

I actually wanted to have a discussion though. .

by having a op full of common misconceptions about pc gaming, sure

 

[w0s]

I've been using cdkeys which has gotten me most games at launch for 30 bucks. My understanding is they are a solid site around here.

 

[Steel]

How do you not have to pay to play games online with consoles?

I don't own either of them but what are the Xbox Live and PS4 subscriptions people pay for then? Just additional online storage?

The poster is basically saying that you don't need to be able to play online on consoles, so you don't need to pay the online sub, not that you can play online anyway(though in the case of F2P and subscription MMOs, you can play online without a sub on PS4).

Marketing includes pricing. PC sellers have more control on pricing therefore they have different marketing tactics than consoles. Do you disagree with this statement? Also marketing is not consistent throughout. Do you believe consoles players and pc players are marketed at the same way?
.

I do. PSN sales are on the front page as much as Steam sales, they're just not as expansive. They're still marketed the same.

 

[Fat4all]

Marketing includes pricing. PC sellers have more control on pricing therefore they have different marketing tactics than consoles. Do you disagree with this statement?

How would a company being competitive with their PC prices be false savings?

 

[Dodecagon]

I'd agree. Most of the time, the 20% bestbuy discount is as good as it gets on any platform for new releases. That being said, thrifty folks could in the long run play more for less with a little patience, discipline, and willingness to hunt for the best deals. Personally though, as long as there isn't a reason to avoid it, I'll pay a little more for the PC release on day one. The quality, mods, and options make it worth it.

 

[saunderez]

When I briefly transitioned back to PC-only gaming earlier in the generation cost savings were definitely eroded by me buying a whole heap of junk I will never play and the high purchase cost of the initial hardware (my video card cost more than my PS4 did). So while I think cost savings can be made, since Valve cracked down on trading it's not nearly the paradise it once was.

 

[Envelope]

The poster is basically saying that you don't need to be able to play online on consoles, so you don't need to pay the online sub, not that you can play online anyway(though in the case of F2P and subscription MMOs, you can play online without a sub on consoles).

i have a name you know ;__;

 

[Steel]

i have a name you know ;__;

Sorry, I only recognize people on gaf by avatars mostly >.>

 

[Darryl M R]

The poster is basically saying that you don't need to be able to play online on consoles, so you don't need to pay the online sub, not that you can play online anyway(though in the case of F2P and subscription MMOs, you can play online without a sub on consoles).



I do. PSN sales are on the front page as much as Steam sales, they're just not as expansive. They're still marketed the same.

Saying they were marketing the same would include pricing being similar. Just the phrase "similar marketing" would have to include same pricing. Marketing is not just being exposed to an item, it is the price of that item, and much more.

 

[Dodecagon]

i have a name you know ;__;

 

[Envelope]

real talk tho i've spent less than 100$ on pc games since 2013 when i built a new pc and have 70+ games to show for it while 2 new major release console games would be just that much so i can't really agree with OP's premise

 

[Darryl M R]

by having a op full of common misconceptions about pc gaming, sure

I posted when I made assumptions and I defined the gamers I was referring to because the only time gaf says "PC saves you more money" is when convincing a console user to switch over.

And I made it clear to correct anything that is incorrect. I'm sorry if you just wanted to read the OP and not comments.


--


Once again, never once did I say PC gaming isn't cheaper per game for consumers. I clearly focused on spending habits and brought up pricing marketing. And if the conclusion is "it depends" while having evidence of gamers with huge backlogs (GAF threads--this does not represent all PC gamers) you could not absolutely say "PC gaming saves you more money."

And if the OP was too long, my bad, I felt the need to flesh out my conversation because I expected just snide comments that would not want to discuss the actual topic of "cheaper" vs "saving."

 

[Steel]

Saying they were marketing the same would include pricing being similar. Just the phrase "similar marketing" would have to include same pricing. Marketing is not just being exposed to an item, it is the price of that item, and much more.

So, what you're saying is, that because PC gaming is cheaper under otherwise the same marketing conditions, people don't save anything? Your argument isn't even making sense now beyond the fringe case I talked about in my other post.

 

[Sarcasm]

Similar marketing doesn't mean same price. If that was the case there would be no competitive market thereforth no need for the many other sites, legit or non legit.

Having misconceptions about things can twist viewpoints and also make people skew things like actual evidence. You do save money, but if you have no self control (aka buy a bunch of stuff that has no value to you) than yeah ANYTHING is more expensive.

I remember blowing all my money on games when I had a dreamcast back in the day. That was a waste. Didn't get so bad with the early days of steam sales when things where commonly 5 bucks. I haven't spent more than 40 on a new game. Than again I don't preorder cause that is a bad practice as is preorder incentives.

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

IMO the real question is whether the cheaper games (and you can get AAA games at release far cheaper than the console versions if you buy even from the right authorized online stores, sometimes even up to 30% or even 50%) really compensate for
a) the cost of having to upgrade your hardware if you want to keep the visual/performance gap between your PC and consoles throughout a console cycle.
b) the higher initial cost really compensates for console optimization and the high number of shitty console to PC ports (compared to vice versa),
c) the fact consoles get cheaper and cheaper later in their console circle, console optimisation gets better and devs find ways to sqeeze even more performance and even better visuals out of them, while hardware requirements usually only ever go up for newer PC games, even for medium settings (so can you afford NOT to upgrade or how much worth does a high initial investion have?)
c) the higher performance and cheaper prices for fewer games makes up for the console exclusives you miss, especially if you are into Japanese games.

Plus a few extra factors like PC gamers not having to pay fees for online play but on the other hand console players get free games out of their subscription...

This is coming from a console loving player who is getting himself a 17 inch Asus Laptop with a GTX 960m and a Skylake I7-6700HQ CPU for christmas and will soon be able to play most current games at high or even ultra settings and already has a huge steam library, thanks to steam sales and Humble Bundles (something to remember: buying loads of games in bulk [whether you are going to play or not] are unbeatably cheap on PC) and is thus pretty much sitting on the fence and neither in the camp of the PC master race or part of the console only crowd.

 

[Darryl M R]

So, what you're saying is, that because PC gaming is cheaper under otherwise the same marketing conditions, people don't save anything? Your argument isn't even making sense now beyond the fringe case I talked about in my other post.

It is under more conditions than just being cheaper.

But yes the argument is "cheaper options" does not mean "saving more money" because the latter is a reflection on buying habits that are influenced by marketing.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Once again, never once did I say PC gaming isn't cheaper per game for consumers. I clearly focused on spending habits and brought up pricing marketing. And if the conclusion is "it depends" while having evidence of gamers with huge backlogs (GAF threads--this does not represent all PC gamers) you could not absolutely say "PC gaming saves you more money."

and yet just because they have a backlog doesn't indicate "false savings" or whatever misnomer you've come up with for the sake of your topic. having more games for less money is the economic and logical argument to be made and in that case, pc gaming does in fact save money over time versus console gaming. in fact even only sticking with AAA games and getting them for 20-50% off each time in comparison to console versions, would still save money

using games people haven't played yet or may never even play as a point is a stretch, because they still own the games via a transaction of some kind

 

[Head.spawn]

You might not be very good at saving money OP... me? I'm pretty damned good at it.

 

[Dictator93]

a) the cost of having to upgrade your hardware if you want to keep the visual/performance gap between your PC and consoles later in their lives,
.

This is not really a thing anymore if you maintain visual and performance parity.

And it was arguably not really even last gen. We have all seen the crysis 2 toaster videos.

 

[StevieP]

IMO the real question is whether the cheaper games (and you can get AAA games at release far cheaper than the console versions if you buy even from the right authorized online stores, sometimes even up to 30% or even 50%) really compensate for
a) the cost of having to upgrade your hardware if you want to keep the visual/performance gap between your PC and consoles later in their lives,
b) the higher initial cost really compensates for console optimization and the high number of shitty console to PC ports (compared to vice versa),
c) the fact consoles get cheaper and cheaper later in their console circle, console optimisation gets better and devs find ways to sqeeze even more performance and even better visuals out of them, while hardware requirements usually only ever go up for newer PC games, even for medium settings (so can you afford NOT to upgrade or how much worth does a high initial investion have?)
c) the higher performance and cheaper prices for fewer games makes up for the console exclusives you miss, especially if you are into Japanese games.

This is coming from a console loving player who is getting himself a 17 inch Asus Laptop with a GTX 960m and a Skylake I7-6700HQ CPU for christmas and will soon be able to play most current games at high or even ultra settings and already has a huge steam library, thanks to steam sales and Humble Bundles (something to remember: buying loads of games in bulk [whether you are going to play or not] are unbeatably cheap on PC) and is thus pretty much sitting on the fence and neither in the camp of the PC master race or part of the console only crowd.

How can you have such an up to date PC and simultaneously post arguments from 2005?

 

[Fat4all]

This month I got a bonus, so my budget for video games is up to $200.

If I were to exclusively use this money on console games I want, I could stretch it to picking up around 6-7 games (sans exclusives, using sales and GCU).

If I were to exclusively use the money on PC games, I could get those 6-7 games and have money left over for either more games, or maybe save it to see Star Wars and go out eating with friends, or putting it in my vacation jar.

The crux of my point is that you do save money, but what is done with that saved money is still up to the spender. Saying they won't be saving money because they will eventually spend the money they saved is just a silly argument.

 

[smisk]

I got Arkham Knight, MGSV and the Witcher 3 for free this year (With my $350 graphics card).

 

[Darryl M R]

and yet just because they have a backlog doesn't indicate "false savings" or what misnomer you've come up with for the sake of your topic. having more games for less money is the economic and logical argument to be made and in that case, pc gaming does in fact save money over time versus console gaming.

using games people haven't played yet or may never even play as a point is a stretch, because they still own the games via a transaction of some kind

If I buy clothes that I barely wear and wouldn't have bought if it wasn't on sale do I save money?

Because I own the clothes I saved money? I have more clothes, for less money. But clothes I would not have bought if there were not sales.

-

And then you have the other scenario where I have more clothes that I wanted for awhile and went on sale and I bought them for a lower price. I was not influenced by marketing but acted on a consumer savvy decision.

You might not be very good at saving money OP... me? I'm pretty damned good at it.

I'm quite good at saving money and I personally/professionally help educate students from my alma mater on financial literacy. But if we are two cases of people that can have self-discipline with our finances does that then mean everyone else can as well?

 

[Salsa]

OP = Everyone lives in the US

 

[Envelope]

This month I got a bonus, so my budget for video games is up to $200.

If I were to exclusively use this money on console games I want, I could stretch it to picking up around 6-7 games (sans exclusives, using sales and GCU).

If I were to exclusively use the money on PC games, I could get those 6-7 games and have money left over for either more games, or maybe save it to see Star Wars and go out eating with friends, or putting it in my vacation jar.

The crux of my point is that you do save money, but what is done with that saved money is still up to the spender. Saying they won't be saving money because they will eventually spend the money they saved is just a silly argument.

yeah this is the counter-argument everyone's been trying to make OP

and how most people would interpret the word "save" in this context

 

[Sarcasm]

In the last five years the only thing I added to my PC is a SSD drive.

Unless you go cheap and low end on everything or buy a laptop, yes you may end up spending more per year on hardware than anything else.

Just a FYI.

If I buy clothes that I barely wear and wouldn't have bought if it wasn't on sale do I save money?

Because I own the clothes I saved money? I have more clothes, for less money. But clothes I would not have bought if there were not sales.

-

And then you have the other scenario where I have more clothes that I wanted for awhile and went on sale and I bought them for a lower price. I was not influenced by marketing but acted on a consumer savvy decision.

Actually you do save money. Just because you barely wear it doesn't mean net loss on your income. Also means you do not need to buy more clothes unless you forget things easily like buying stuff in the past. Did you even think about this anthology?

Might have been better saying: If I bought clothes I do not need or value than set it on fire, do I save anything?

 

[Grief.exe]

I am hoping to have a conversation on why a lot of PC users mention how much PC saves them in terms of buying games when talking to primary console users that play AAA titles. I would think that this group of console players make up the majority of the userbase, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would like to preface with the knowledge that I do not currently having a gaming PC but I'm hoping to build one in 2016; and I am truly excited to start gaming on a PC and enjoying titles I never enjoyed before. I experienced some sales on Steam through Steam for Mac users but I did not buy anything that was greatly discounted because I did not want to play those games. I also think PC gaming should be leading technology and setting the expectation for games and how communities/costumers should demand quality.

Now to my actual talking point:

I often see in threads that are posted to help the OP convince himself that he should invest in a PC that it is the cheaper option in the long-run because you "save" money because games are so cheap. I would argue that this is false for most gamers that play big AAA titles on release or close to release. This is a segment of gamers/consumers that I am speaking about, not everyone, but I think this users make up the majority of console gamers and therefore they lead/vote with their wallets on how developers and publishers act.

Unless you are purchasing from a third party website that sells games for a lower price--and from my understanding a lot of people frown on buying from them--you are still paying the initial price to purchase AAA titles at release.

(Now I will make an assumption and I am being transparent about it):

We can expect consoles gamers that come over to the PC to still play the titles they enjoyed on their console (yearly CoD, Battlefield, Witcher 3 etc.). We can also expect them to play games that are now available to them because they are on a PC (CS:GO, Dota, Arma, etc.). Now we can expect them to take advantage of steam sells to buy other games that may have not been on their radar. But how does this save them money?

Let's say a sale is going on where you can buy The Mass Effect series for $5. Well if you didn't have a PC, you would have not bought it. You decide to buy it and maybe you play it all and enjoy it, or maybe it goes into your backlog of steam games because you took advantage of a lot of sales. But you didn't save money. You spent it. You spent money that you could not have spent on a current gen console because that series was not available for you to buy and play.

Similar to how people laughed at a user who posted that they saved $200 on Black Friday by buying $200 worth of electronics. No you spent money. For a lower price. But you spent money that you would have not if it was not discounted.

Once again this argument uses the assumption that we are talking about your largest console playerbase that buys AAA at or close to release and that they would keep up their spending habits on a new platform (PC).

I would like to hear others opinion on how the term "saving" get thrown around for PC.


TL;DR: Do you really save money by switching to PC when your spending habits change to accommodate for buying more games on (steam) sale but you also still buying AAA titles on release.

Is there a better word/phrase we could use besides saying you "save" more in the long run when talking to an individual that states his current gaming style/buying habits?

This argument does not hold for individuals that decide not to buy games close to release.

All this post
And no argument

When I briefly transitioned back to PC-only gaming earlier in the generation cost savings were definitely eroded by me buying a whole heap of junk I will never play and the high purchase cost of the initial hardware (my video card cost more than my PS4 did). So while I think cost savings can be made, since Valve cracked down on trading it's not nearly the paradise it once was.

So.

You didn't save money because you are a poor consumer?

 

[Maintenance]

After I bought my PS4 I noticed that even with sales I ended up spending a fuckton more on games than what I used to on Steam, everything is way more expensive. Can't wait for Dirt Rally to come out with a 59.99 price tag on the PS4 when I got the game on Steam for less than 20 dollars (after cambial exchange).

And yes OP, to me saving is still a valid word, I would be spending the money anyway. If you want to discuss semantics, then just stop buying games and you'll really save money.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Here are my last three purchases for PC and PS4:

PC

£10 Mad Max (week 1),
£23 Black Ops III (pre-load)
£15 Assassin's Creed: Syndicate (week 1)

PS4

£40 The Nathan Drake Collection
£35 Bloodborne
£47 Uncharted 4

And that's me buying pysical PS4 games, if it were digital the difference would be even higher. If you factor Steam sales, GoG sales, Humble Bundle etc it's clear PC gaming is considerably cheaper.

 

[Poimandres]

Would someone deny that marketing and price management influence decision making for consumers?

I am not arguing that PC gaming is more expensive than console.

My original post focused on buying habits, perhaps a lot of people who compare it to first grade logic do not believe that marketing influences them and that when they see a sale and they decide to purchase something it is their own decision rather than one influenced by lower pricing. Thus going to the conclusion a lot of people mention: it depends. But by having that conclusion you would have to say "PC gaming is cheaper per game" not "It saves you money."

A lot of you all seem to be arguing: "Don't buy it then, have self-control" but is this the typical PC gamer on gaf (based on threads). It is easy not to reflect on spending habits but honestly think about how marketing influence you and others.


Thank you for making this link. . my post honestly stems from a lot of gaf backlog threads. .but it is too specific somehow.

What you are talking about does happen, and honestly applies to my personal experiences (many games that I may/may not ever get around to playing).

BUT this is highly variable depending on the person. If you are diligent and only buy games you know that you are going to play, you will save money vs buying console games. If you are even more diligent and prepared to wait for sales on the games that you want, you will save even more.

It's also worth noting that for me personally my experience with PC gaming has driven me away from the "need it day 1" mentality I used to have. A year after launch a game will certainly be cheaper and there is a decent chance it will be in better shape. This has always been somewhat true of PC games, but it's actually increasingly applicable to console games thanks to patches that can have a very real impact on the experience you have playing a game.

 

[Darryl M R]

All this post
And no argument.

"How does this save money"

"Do you really save money by switching to PC when your spending habits change to accommodate for buying more games on (steam) sale but you also still buying AAA titles on release."

Spoiler

Are you trolling me?

What you are talking about does happen, and honestly applies to my personal experiences (many games that I may/may not ever get around to playing).

BUT this is highly variable depending on the person. If you are diligent and only buy games you know that you are going to play, you will save money vs buying console games. If you are even more diligent and prepared to wait for sales on the games that you want, you will save even more.

It's also worth noting that for me personally my experience with PC gaming has driven me away from the "need it day 1" mentality I used to have. A year after launch a game will certainly be cheaper and there is a decent chance it will be in better shape. This has always been somewhat true of PC games, but it's actually increasingly applicable to console games thanks to patches that can have a very real impact on the experience you have playing a game.

I'm glad you shared your experience and I think it shows that gamers differ in buying habits and what they focus on. I think what we both agree upon despite you wording it as a rebuttal is that you have to be diligent in purchasing games, but that can be said about most things in life and that is why I argue that the statement "PC gaming saves you money" is false but instead "PC gaming is cheaper per game."

 

[Jerm411]

The much cheaper prices and just sheer volume of games that look awesome are making seriously consider switching to PC gaming...its just being afraid of the entry point.

I'm envious of my PCcentric friends who get the same games I have for cheaper or can play games I flat out can't or have to wait on....

 

[Basileus777]

The savings are exaggerated, especially if you aren't buying keys through resellers. Digital sales on consoles are pretty good now, and you have the advantage of buying retail games and taking advantage of things like GCU which will save you as much money if not more than GMG.

 

[Steel]

It is under more conditions than just being cheaper.

But yes the argument is "cheaper options" does not mean "saving more money" because the latter is a reflection on buying habits that are influenced by marketing.

Talking about me, personally, here. I have about 5 games in my backlog on my PC that I've barely touched. The total amount of money those games cost me added together? $60. I have 70 games on steam. So, in my case I am absolutely saving money, quite a lot of money. Of course, I'm not in that fringe case of only buying AAA games and having no self-control that you laid out in the OP, either.

 

[kswiston]

You have to jump through hoops to get console preorders for as cheap as you can regularly get PC preorders. Especially in Canada where standard price is $80. Best Buy and Amazon will offer 1-2 instances a year where you can save 30% off preorders but both charge taxes on their purchases. So basically that works out to $63 in Canada if I preorder months in advance.

I have picked up The Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid V, Fallout 4 at or near launch this year, and all of them were $5+ cheaper than those limited preorder deals after currency conversion. $30+ cheaper than the same games at retail.

Sales also tend to be better on PC than they are on PSN (and way better than they are at retail).

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

This is not really a thing anymore if you maintain visual and performance parity.

And it was arguably not really even last gen. We have all seen the crysis 2 toaster videos.

Good point. Still, games running well on consoles and running like shit on PC (e.g. Batman Arkham Knight), PC games that are horribly optimized for lower spec rigs, or PC ports that pretty much look the same like the console versions are aplenty and should be considered.

 

[Fat4all]

Agmire needs to budget better.

 

[Steel]

Good point. Still, games running well on consoles and running like shit on PC (e.g. Batman Arkham Knight), PC games that are horribly optimized for lower spec rigs, or PC ports that pretty much look the same like the console versions are aplenty and should be considered.

They exist, but there aren't many of them.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I built my PC in June, and have been like a kid in a candy store in regards to snapping up games on sale.

I've amassed around 200 games, and I'd say my out of pocket costs have been around $90. The cost of one brand new AAA title, and a $30 title. That's over the course of six months.

Yes, it's cheaper.

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

Here are my last three purchases for PC and PS4:
And that's me buying pysical PS4 games, if it were digital the difference would be even higher. If you factor Steam sales, GoG sales, Humble Bundle etc it's clear PC gaming is considerably cheaper.

I did get Wolfenstein: New Order for $9 during the PSN black friday sale. Did the prices for the game ever get that low for the PC version... at least from authorized sellers? Digital versions of console games can become incredibly cheap, even if not at the frequency and at the initial discounts PC games do.

 

[Woo-Fu]

The savings is as real as your willpower.

 

[StevieP]

I did get Wolfenstein: New Order for $9 during the PSN black friday sale. Did the prices for the game ever get that low for the PC version... at least from authorized sellers?

It got that low on Steam, and even lower if you looked around. Console digital is generally not cheaper.

 

[Skux]

You save huge amounts. Sony and Microsoft always seem reluctant to lower prices on their own online stores, it's maddening. Even for their biggest holiday sales, their online prices have never trumped PC stores like Steam and GoG.

Ever since upgrading my PC, my PS4 has only been used for exclusives.

 

[Fat4all]

The savings is as real as your willpower.

I used to spend $60 a month on console games, but now I spend $60 of iOS games.

Diamond willpower.

 

[Darryl M R]

Talking about me, personally, here. I have about 5 games in my backlog on my PC that I've barely touched. The total amount of money those games cost me added together? $60. I have 70 games on steam. So, in my case I am absolutely saving money, quite a lot of money. Of course, I'm not in that fringe case of only buying AAA games and having no self-control that you laid out in the OP, either.

I just want to remind that my fringe case reflects the threads I've seen of a "typical" console user that enjoys AAA on release that are asking about switching to PC. This is not suppose to represent everyone because my thread is a response to the posters that go into those threads and say "you save more money." Ignoring his/her spending habits.

You get more for less on PC. This is so true. You have 70 games that you enjoyed throughout the years and are happy with only having a backlog of 5 games. I have a fraction of those games that I've enjoyed and because other games were not offered to me at a price I was willing to purchase at, I didn't buy them. Now if I bought them at a discount, I would not have saved money because my initial action was to not make the transaction. I would have spent $0 for Game A, but because it was discounted I bought it for $10. But I didn't save ~$50 when I could have walked away without spending anything.

 

[.hacked]

decent graphic card is 2x price of a console but who cares I save $10 on a game very now and then. After buying 20+ games I'll have saved enough to buy another graphics card and start it all over again.