Don't point fingers and call someone names especially trolls when the entire thread premise started as one.
Plus this
Plus this
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
False "saving" with switching to PC
- Thread starter Darryl M R
- Start date
Current - Peak
393,975 - 820,233 - Dota 2
169,605 - 617,853 - Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
89,231 - 113,756 - Fallout 4
41,173 - 58,170 - Team Fortress 2
33,036 - 42,870 - Sid Meier's Civilization V
28,085 - 44,769 - Warframe
24,615 - 40,354 - ARK: Survival Evolved
22,659 - 42,779 - Grand Theft Auto V
22,173 - 33,915 - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
21,504 - 32,510 - Garry's Mod
Today's stats. Top 10 anyway.
Even factoring duplicate accounts or whatever else, Steam's numbers dwarf the consoles, combined.
Probably been said by now, but you also save money from not spending a premium to play online every year. The hardest thing an out PC gaming is making the hardware purchase. Its hefty in the beginning, but it's paid off for me. I have too many games to even worry about nee releases atm and they will be really cheap by the time I can play them. Also,I've traded for games in TF2 lol.
Springfoot
Member
Oh sure. Personally I'm at a point where I only buy what I know I'll play that week and routinely buy new games from reputable online distributors at a steep discount that the console versions won't see for 6+ month period. Over the course of a given year, I spend several hundred dollars less to play the same games at the same time as I would have purchasing their console releases.
I was mainly confused because the OP seems to be conflating the actual cost of goods available with his/her personal impulse control issues (their "actual talking point") while meanwhile rolling in a quote from someone talking about the separate issue of who benefits and enjoys what PC gaming has to offer.
NullPointer
Member
I experienced it enough myself with my cross-fired radeon setup, before finally moving back to consoles and a cheaper PC. I did all kinds of custom tweaks and configs and some games just played like warmed over shit on my rig. I wasted too much time on that stuff. Rage was a disaster, fixed itself magically and then when I came back to it a few months later it had somehow reverted back to shit again. I'm talking Rage PC launch day levels of horrendous. Assassins Creed Revelations played solid 60 until I went into the matrixy bits where my framerate would plummet to the low teens. GTA 4 had streaming issues and even basic shadows brought the game to a crawl. FarCry 3 would roll a die to see whether I would get 30fps or 60fps on any load. Driver: SF got stuck running at 24fps in a borked resolution. And those were just off the top of my head. Problems abounded in my experience, and they were generally a bitch and a half to solve if they were anything besides enabling something specific in RadeonPro or downloading a new driver.
Nowadays I check the impressions and reviews and digital foundry comparisons for console games and don't pre-order, and thats worked out for the most part. Definitely less stressful, though I doubt I'll play many Bethesda games on the console after playing Skyrim on PC with all kinds of mods and instant load times. You win some, you lose some.
To be honest running a dual-GPU setup is just asking for issues. Single cards are powerful enough for the vast majority of people and reduce troubleshooting and waiting for new drivers a lot.
Saintruski
Unconfirmed Member
All I'm gathering is OP and who OP quoted tried to make a fact, and all they did was make it completely subjective.
Also as a once console gamer I'm saving tons of money (and I have a 5960x/980ti), I bought more than 90 games in the PS3 era which was a good 4800-5000 dollars itself. And went through 2 ps3s and many accessories.
And most of my friends did not match this average console consumer they are setting, so as far as I'm getting, it's to each their own.
Also as a once console gamer I'm saving tons of money (and I have a 5960x/980ti), I bought more than 90 games in the PS3 era which was a good 4800-5000 dollars itself. And went through 2 ps3s and many accessories.
And most of my friends did not match this average console consumer they are setting, so as far as I'm getting, it's to each their own.
NullPointer
Member
Yeah. I know this now, but I needed it for my setup at the time. But the fact that something so basic could lead to such problems just goes to show that PC still has a ways to go before becoming as convenient as they are powerful, across all types of consumer.
Coreda
Member
My take is they're trying to weigh the pros and cons of a gaming PC by asking for any downsides to PC gaming purchases and whether is represents a cost saving to the average console owner, but rather than asking it matter-of-factly it's a mis-mash of meandering hypotheticals and incorrect assumptions.
Adding to this is a quote edited in at the top that states there's no cost benefit to typical console users (literally making them out to be mindless mass market "motherfuckers") while ending with a TL;DR that assumes PC games are too cheap, leading to hoarding (not true for many but apparently meant to be the entire premise of the OP).
ʅ(❛ -❛ )ʃ
The 970 is $324.99 on Amazon right now. How is that close to 2x the console price?
Or my 750ti, that has been my only upgrade in the last 4 years that cost me $100??
Finaika
Member
DirectX 12 will solve all the problems with SLI / CrossFire.
The average consumer wouldn't go for a mGPU setup in the first place. It is rare even among enthusiasts.
Springfoot
Member
I take it you're not familiar with this? It's not like people can share the personal experiences they've never had, and it seems like your point is that PC gaming doesn't save money for people with poor impulse control who overspend on things they'll never use. That's not really specific to gaming or the influence of videogame-specific marketing, though.
What the hell? This is a place to have discussions with gaming enthusiasts, not bludgeon each other into submission until one 'side' achieves 'victory'.
I too enjoy drive-by posting about how nobody should even be bother discussing the topic at hand while enjoying the satisfaction of making myself out to be superior to everyone who is.
There is reason to it at least for my sake when flash sales occur I go on a spending spree. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm spending more, it just means I have a backlog that I'm probably not going to be able to finish. With PC I have so many games with PS4 I have at most probably 10 and Vita 20. I don't know where to start.
If you're worried about price saving, you can save just as much on console as on PC and vice versa. Backlog is a different story since console games are so much more expensive while steam has a wide variety of games, you just have to control your spending habits and beat games rather then purchasing for the sake of it because its cheap. I've learned to do it, so really its each to their own.
Dictator93
Member
Let's be 100% honest with each other. A multi card AMD solution never had compatibility stability let alone performance stability in any game that is not CIV V.
The thing is, it is a thing... not a "thing so basic". Multi card set ups are extremely niche in general, especially AMD ones.
The experience of multi card owners is not representative of PC compaitibility problems at large, especially AMD multi card issues.
Maintenance
Member
NullPointer
Member
How was I supposed to know that though?
I needed to support several monitors in different configurations, simply, if I was going to go PC, and that was the best configuration. I asked GAF about it, and asked tech people I knew from work. Nowhere did I get a warning that it was niche so I should expect many of my games to shit the bed.
And I bought a pre-made machine with everything setup. Nothing to worry about, and some games played fantastic, and then some really, really didn't. And not all of my problems were related to the cross-fire. Some were just bugs in the games themselves, and some problems were related to my SSD-Hybrid HDD.
There's always something. Its made me prefer the simplicity of dedicated hardware. But for those who have a great PC setup without any woes, you don't have to convince me of the glory. It is fucking glorious and stupendously awesome when everything just works.
basically the steam machine is trying to combat this by being more accessible. The more accessible a platform is, the more successful it will probably be. PS3 was a nightmare to develop for in the beginning and it suffered many losses. PS4 now is much more accessible and easier to develop. Mobile games for android and iphone are super simple to use and develop for.
I'm impressed by the numbers for certain MMO's etc.... its just not as easy to utilized compared to just popping in a disc or downloading an app on a phone and just running it from there.
No, it does not. It just gives developers more control over it, making it harder to implement.
Fachasaurus
Member
I havent used my PC for gaming in the last 6 months or so and I just bought a bunch of games to get into that were GOTY contenders. Mind you I have a watercooled 980 Ti which has a decent overclock on it.
And wow its rough. I know starting with Arkham Knight was a mistake since its a shit show on PC but holy fishsticks. I am positive I am in the settings menu more often than the game.
I really hope Witcher 3 doesnt give me these issues because if so, my New Years resolution might just be to become a console gamer for 2016.
And wow its rough. I know starting with Arkham Knight was a mistake since its a shit show on PC but holy fishsticks. I am positive I am in the settings menu more often than the game.
I really hope Witcher 3 doesnt give me these issues because if so, my New Years resolution might just be to become a console gamer for 2016.
I've got something like 20 Vita games. Have spent more than 15 dollars on one exactly once, and that was 18 something after tax.
Most of them I've bought for around 5 dollars.
I've got a similar total for PS3 games. I've bought a ton of Wii U and 3DS stuff day one, but most of that is with eshop credit bought on sale, with bonus points from other schemes added on. Probably average 35 for the Wii U games and 25-28 for the 3DS.
You never have to pay full price, even on launch.
Most of them I've bought for around 5 dollars.
I've got a similar total for PS3 games. I've bought a ton of Wii U and 3DS stuff day one, but most of that is with eshop credit bought on sale, with bonus points from other schemes added on. Probably average 35 for the Wii U games and 25-28 for the 3DS.
You never have to pay full price, even on launch.
I also find it funny when people say "invest" on console. Invest, means something sometime there are returns. Objectively PC is cheaper because it exceeds usage other than gaming. So no, any argument in favor of console is moot because a PC is used for work consoles never will.
Even if you earn money by reviewing games or streaming you will still need a PC in video editing word processing setting up websites and all that jazz.
Even if you earn money by reviewing games or streaming you will still need a PC in video editing word processing setting up websites and all that jazz.
old
Member
This reminds me of my JRPG friends. Always complaining about the lack of localized titles. But every single one of them only buys JRPGs two years after release on a Buy 2 Get One Free sale on top of the prices already being cut down to $20 new (down from $50+).
2 years after launch. On sale. After steep price cuts. Whew! Lots of money there for the publishers....And they wonder why the sequels don't get brought stateside.
Gamers have to learn you literally vote with your dollars. The more dollars you spend the more votes you cast. Spending the least dollars means casting the least votes.
Crimsonclaw111
Member
My account has 323 games and is 3 years old. I've spent more than that in a single year for 10 or so games across Wii U, Xbone, and PS4. I have absolutely saved money.
Trogdor1123
Member
99% of this thread is hardly a "discussion". Don't know what to tell you if you think it is.
Dictator93
Member
This reads like a joke. You are using what is considered the worst PC port of the year (which was pulled from stores for months and allowed people to get a refund forever) as some sort of representative referential point. This somehow pushes you in the direction of not using your PC ever? Hrmmm
TW3 scales wonderfully btw, your card will have no problem with 1080p 60 maxed.
Doesn't really make it moot...
You don't really invest in a console, you just buy it and plug it in...
old
Member
Krappadizzle
Member
I will trade you the console of your choice for that trash of a card 980ti so I can SLI mine.
You missed my point entirely. Here, I'll make it slow.
PC, no matter the cost, still exceeds console when it comes to value because it is not just for gaming. Then add everybody's argument like storefront choices for deep discounts, longevity of hardware, upgradibility, DRM-free options, no paid multi, better performance : cost etc etc.
Randomizer
Member
Shush you! No reasonable points of view in a PC vs Console thread. Get out of this thread you dirty fence sitter!
Based on the quality of comment he made, I wouldn't put it past him to take that offer.
Is that true? I'm going to be curious which sells more and makes more profit, PS4 SF5 or PC
Well I used a 200 dollar netbook for years but had to invest in a desktop computer specifically for gaming when I previously used it for work related affairs. Maybe its a worthwhile endeavor but honestly, most people just pay the bare bone minimum for a laptop that can do work related processes rather than creating a computer that plays game and more. It's too much investment for the common human being.
Consider this: how much do publishers make off used game sales? And then you'll understand.
I'd say the PS4 as it obviously has more volume, at least initially. Another aspect of PC sales is that they have extremely long tails, but I don't know how that will apply to SF5 due to is newer Software as a Service structure.
Not only that, you have discs to press, license fees to pay. The share that goes to the publisher even in legitimate retail is much smaller. Steam charges 30% flat fee, now consider how little publishers make from console sales if they get a larger share of revenue on a unit sold in the Steam store.
How many casual console players are there compared to casual PC players that will buy SF5?
I don't know the difference nor am I psychic but I think you're pointing out the obvious here and not really considering the situation I'm presenting.
texhnolyze
Banned
At launch? 100% it'll be more profitable on PS4.
Years later? Could be the Steam version.
That is how PC sales work.
Well, that's the problem, right?
OP is basically:
A) claiming falsely that the difference between PC and console costs is minimal
B) insisting that it's everyone else's fault he has no self control
C) citing a poorly-considered and uncivil post
Ultimately, if I have a budget of, say, $500 to spend on gaming this year, I can obtain far more games on the PC--in many cases, those games will be day and date releases with their console counterparts (e.g. Witcher 3 for $16, Evolve for $7.50, Mad Max for $35)--for the money I spend. The OP's post is demonstrably false. ScatheZombie's argument is flagrantly fallacious.
Trolling is deriving amusement through intentionally upsetting people. I'm not intentionally upsetting you, I'm simply disagreeing with your poorly-written, ill-considered conjecture of a post, and all I've done is take objection to the use of a comment calling people "motherfuckers" and the stupid assertion that it's better value to trade games in than to buy them cheaper and keep them instead, and I used math to back it up.
If this upsets you, it's not because I'm trying to upset you, it's because you need to cool down.
You are, quite simply, wrong from an objective standpoint. That's all there is to it.
I was talking about the "is it true" comment not the SF5 one, specifically. That being said, there are more people on steam that have => Console specs than there are people who own a PS4.
Thank you for enlightening my idea. I look forward to seeing the sales of these two side by side and its life time sales.
Digital sales do exist for both sides, and I understand used market contributes nothing to developers and publishers already.
Other than your own anecdote, what other factual matters can you cite on how consoles beat PC in terms of value.
Scrooge McDuck
Member
I suppose the OP is true, in that for every general statement, there would be some specific exceptional cases. However, if the argument for said exceptions basically boils to "it's not saving money because people who don't care, want or try to save money would not save money," I have to question how illuminating the conversation would be.
I provided my own anecdote feel free to provide your own or statistics. Fact of the matter is, accessibility is everything. You make something harder for a consumer to utilize, they'll be less inclined to it. I'm not really discussing value, I'm discussing mere consumer thought patterns and how they react to certain products.
Digital sales are 10% of console sales, on PC the physical sales can't be resold. Additionally, the chunk of profit that steam claims is less than the chunk that console holders take from their games. It's a no-brainer that publishers make more money per unit from PC.
ScatheZombie
Member
It's not that they make more money per unit on PC - it's that they receive a larger percentage of gross on digital. That's a very subtle, but important difference.
Because if you're comparing a $60 console title to its $60 PC counterpart (or even $50), the percentages favor PC revenue. But when you start comparing $40, $30, $20 PC counterparts to their still $60-$50 console ones, then the percentages don't necessarily work out. 35%-30% of $60 is still better than 60% of $25.
And with the vast majority of console sales coming in the launch window (with the game at full price) and the vast majority of PC sales coming after the game is below $20, it becomes even less clear and distinguishable.
Lifetime sales and revenue of multi-plat AAA still generally favor console outside of notable exceptions like Skyrim.
I think it is rather shortsighted to pick specific examples, especially when the whole thread is concerned about generalities. There are specific examples that will surely break overall trends in either direction, but from a global perspective those trends exist.
So digital sales aren't 20% or 30% but 10%. I'm curious where you received that percentage from. I don't doubt that more money is made from PC per unit. That I believe is very true.
The deals that we search for are not really accessible to the average human being which is why I bring up the accessibility point. of course people love deals, everyone love deals, but the deals we find are probably not as apparent to the general consumer since even on Black Friday, people believe the best deals exist on those days when in reality its a blanket and veil.
Can you list those specific trends? I'm not truly aware of them so I apologize.
You make a very interesting point and I thank you for your contribution that really helped opened my mind to that idea. Really appreciate it and hadn't thought about that.