You are picking at the minority rather than the massive abundance of games that work exceptionally - BAK being the first game on PC (ever?) to be removed from digital sale due to such hilariously woeful issues. And if we are going into the "horribly optimized for lower spec rigs" argument, I am more than happy to argue against that - happily (well almost) chugging along with a 4 year old laptop and playing the latest games above 30fps at the laptops native 1366x768 resolution. MGS V, Wolfenstein, Alien Isolation, GTA V etc, no problems. Obviously I'd rather have a better system, but I am waiting for the right cases and components to release next year before moving on since the laptop is still doing well enough.
-
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
You are picking at the minority rather than the massive abundance of games that work exceptionally - BAK being the first game on PC (ever?) to be removed from digital sale due to such hilariously woeful issues. And if we are going into the "horribly optimized for lower spec rigs" argument, I am more than happy to argue against that - happily (well almost) chugging along with a 4 year old laptop and playing the latest games above 30fps at the laptops native 1366x768 resolution. MGS V, Wolfenstein, Alien Isolation, GTA V etc, no problems. Obviously I'd rather have a better system, but I am waiting for the right cases and components to release next year before moving on since the laptop is still doing well enough.
Poimandres
Member
I think you do have a good point, but there's more to this building a backlog business than just consoles vs PC and spending habits.
When I was younger, I would cherish every game and play them front to back. Why? Because I had loads of spare time, very few responsibilities, no money, and only a handful of games. A single game might need to last 6 monhts or more, so you better believe I got my mileage out of them.
But, one of life's cruel jokes is that as you get older you have more money and less time. By the time I was in my early 20's I was already amassing a backlog of PS2-era games thanks to sales at local stores. The backlog wasn't too deep though, because I didn't have THAT much money and still had a decent amount of time to spend days at a time playing games.
In the 360/PS3 era, my backlog got larger as my income increased and gaming time decreased.
Then I got a gaming PC (and a Wii U... and a PS4)
And now my backlog is larger than it's ever been with no signs of slowing down, but I actually think that I legitimately do spend less money on games than I did last generation because I question before I buy a new release game if I would be better off playing one of the many untouched jems in my collection, and on average I pay much less per game.
Edit: Just saw you added to your response. Changing the message from "PC gaming is cheaper" to "PC gaming is cheaper per game" is something I can definitely get behind! Fully agreed!
What? You can get a 970 that so far outclasses the PS4 it's not even a comparison for $350. That's an almost top of the line GPU. If you want to equal to PS4, you spend $100 on a 750TI. And we're not even talking about sales. But, sure, make things up.
So, you're basically saying that you, personally, would buy several times as many games as you normally would and end up spending the same amount of money on PC. Ok?
ScatheZombie
Member
PC gamers don't understand the purchasing habits of the console market. Your typical console every-man is buying <6 titles a year. All at full price. All on day one. From a brick and mortar store. They don't care about shopping around, they don't care about sales, they don't care about indies, and they don't care about PC exclusives. They're not going to build their own PC. They're not going to troubleshoot or mess with settings. They don't care about mods. They're not going to research shit.
For that motherfucker, of which there are millions, there is no cost benefit to moving to PC gaming.
You're all imposing your own habits on the mass market - which is what the OP was talking about - and wondering why everyone doesn't see things the way you do. You are not the mass market.
Nevermind the irony of the same people who complain that AAA publishers either outright ignore and put no effort into PC gaming while bragging about buying their products on launch day for fractions of their full price.
Some days, you guys, some days...
For that motherfucker, of which there are millions, there is no cost benefit to moving to PC gaming.
You're all imposing your own habits on the mass market - which is what the OP was talking about - and wondering why everyone doesn't see things the way you do. You are not the mass market.
Nevermind the irony of the same people who complain that AAA publishers either outright ignore and put no effort into PC gaming while bragging about buying their products on launch day for fractions of their full price.
Some days, you guys, some days...
texhnolyze
Banned
This is such an old stereotype surrounding PC gaming. You should read this thread how PC gaming actually works.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1156460
False.
750 ti is frequently <$100 and matches or exceeds the PS4 in the majority of multiplatform games.
Much simpler to drive by post than to alleviate ignorance.
It's completely undebatable that you can get games cheaper on PC than you can on console regardless of how great a sale Sony/Microsoft runs. You just have to be patient.
Two months ago, we had the Capcom humble bundle where $15 got you Remember Me, RE4, RE5, RE: Revelations, Bionic Commando: Rearmed, Strider, Lost Planet 3, DmC, and Ultra Street Fighter 4. Average price per game was under $2. Seven of those launched as $60 retail titles. Half are less than 3 years old.
That sort of thing isn't all that uncommon either.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, it was £5 on Steam which is about $7.50. PSN is insanely expensive in the UK, literally double the price of physical at times. Games in general are just so much more expensive on console.
Darryl M R
Member
Thank you for eloquently phrasing my argument. I'm going to blame all the jargon and long words on my long day at work. (If you don't mind I'm adding this to my OP).
I don't see how it's hard for others to understand this (the way you worded).
Can you rephrase this for me please. I don't see how this connects to my post.
silvermember
Banned
You are correct you can get a graphics card more powerful than Ps4. You just gotta find a way to be able to play games only on the graphics card alone. A graphics card us only one component of a gaming PC. While a ps4 is complete. You don't need anymore other than a TV. Just like a PC needs monitor.
I think I wrote up a good post and everything, but if you're just going to continue with the whole persecution-complex and say "I never said PC gaming wasn't cheaper" or the equivalent of "^ this" as your only replies w/e.
The fact of the matter is by all of definitions you are "saving" whether it be from a purely economic standpoint of it being "cheaper" to the standpoint of a person who will buy another game as a result of receiving a cheaper product.
The fact of the matter is by all of definitions you are "saving" whether it be from a purely economic standpoint of it being "cheaper" to the standpoint of a person who will buy another game as a result of receiving a cheaper product.
Deceitful-Fox
Neo Member
I probably pay the same amount overall on games as I used to last gen when I was PS3 only, but now I can buy a LOT more. If you're patient and wait for sales, you can get games for peanuts. It is most definitely not a 'false' saving.
I presented facts about my situation, don't know why you feel the need to personally attack people who present facts contrary to yours. It's a fact PC gaming is worse value now that trading has been cracked down on. It's a fact that my video card cost 2x what a console costs. I never even said thr alternative is better value, but go ahead continue pointing out how much of a "bad consumer I am".
Do you really think arguments on a gaming forum about PC gaming being cheaper are aimed at the people that buy Fifa/Madden/ Call of Duty each year and call it a day?
If that's what the OP was going for, he's even more deluded than I thought. No shit the 6 games a year guy isn't going to save money. Nobody is suggesting he is. When this argument is brought up, it's 90 percent of the time comparing it to other core gamers that spend a lot of time and money on the medium already.
Enigmatic Rainbow
Member
Purchased Old Blood off GMG for $3.80. It was also on sale for $6.79 on Bundle Stars.
The post was a reply concerning a GPU only, nothing extra.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, we know, Batman runs badly on PC unlike 99.9% of all other major games.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
We're imposing our habits on a video game enthusiast forum.
Darryl M R
Member
Yes, people come into threads all the time when the OP asks "convince me on a PC" "explain to me the benefit of a PC" without asking them what games they play.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Isn't trolling so blatantly against the rules here?
The irony of this post is that steam is a much, much healthier platform than consoles. And you'd damn well better believe that a lot of it is regular Joe's, cause there aren't that many hardcore gamers in the world.
Is that the only game that exists?
texhnolyze
Banned
So you're a PC gamer, huh?
I feel sorry for your gtx 980, my low end card can run the game as fine as the PS4. I've just finished the game last week.
Do you think the average NEOGAF forum poster is the "buy 6 games a year" guy?
Pretty sure he's grandfathered in from the old forums.
And the additional irony behind that post: Ps4 can't run batman as well as a gtx 980. I could lock 30fps and drop a bunch of settings on a much weaker card.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
The IGN forums are leaking.
The only reason anyone would spend $600-700 on a videocard is because they are looking for an experience that consoles (or more reasonably priced computers) can't replicate. It's the same reason people were jumping on current gen consoles at launch 2 years ago when there wasn't much to justify having one for several months other than better looking crossgen games.
This is like telling people that it costs $70k to own a car because you will personally only drive a Jag.
fluffydelusions
Member
I know this is a troll post but I really wonder where Destiny would chart on Steam stats page
Maintenance
Member
Stop giving the troll attention, just report to a mod and move on.
Darryl M R
Member
Is it really? I'm not arguing that steam doesn't have a larger playerbase but how much revenue is made from steam vs consoles? I don't know if these numbers are displayed for steam. I'm just assuming a good chunk of steam (20%) are people that made an account and never bought anything or duplicate accounts for whatever reason. I'm not sure you can say it is healthier. I would like to hear more info about steam's statistics for its playerbase (trying to find some right now).
I honestly think there is a lot of posters that only care about AAA titles or well supported 1st party games.
.hacked
Member
used to be, sold it all and banked enough to buy every Xbox One and Ps4 game I want for the next 2 years. That is some savings
Here you're talking about how you'd purchase multiple games that you wouldn't have so often that you wouldn't end up saving anything if you were on PC:
That's what my post was directed at. Also, if we're talking about the average console gamer that buys an average of 8 games per generation then obviously it doesn't matter since they don't even take advantage of sales on their own consoles(even then, Steam has day one discounts on AAA games without even resorting to third party sellers).
It's also worth noting, I've been buying games on steam since well before current gen, so my 70 games versus your fraction of that very much makes sense.
the fuck
I mean of course? But we're on GAF and it's an enthusiast forum. The presumption is the average poster here probably buys quite a few games a year and keeps up with the release schedule. Just as your baseline casual PC gamer might be someone with a laptop who plays LoL, CSGO, or DOTA 2 and never buys another game.
Steam isn't the majority of the PC market. It's just the majority of the portion of the PC market that GAF cares about (IE the sort of games that you are also likely to find on consoles).
fluffydelusions
Member
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Currently more than 1 billion paid games owned on Steam according to Steamspy.
You save money on PC because games are consistently cheaper, even on release, if you even just check some of the biggest third party sites (which aren't remotely sketchy). And often on Steam itself.
Any arguments as to the effect of "if games are cheaper then you buy more games and spend the same amount" is irrelevant, because it's still cheaper to get the same content you would have otherwise gotten on consoles.
In fact, if we take that argument to its absurd conclusion, no platform would ever save money compared to any other platform, because you would always spend X amount of money for some amount of content. Oh, two games for $100, sign me up! Oh, three games for $100, sign me up! Oh, one game for $100, sign me up! Oh, thirty games for $100, sign me up! It's foolish.
Any arguments as to the effect of "if games are cheaper then you buy more games and spend the same amount" is irrelevant, because it's still cheaper to get the same content you would have otherwise gotten on consoles.
In fact, if we take that argument to its absurd conclusion, no platform would ever save money compared to any other platform, because you would always spend X amount of money for some amount of content. Oh, two games for $100, sign me up! Oh, three games for $100, sign me up! Oh, one game for $100, sign me up! Oh, thirty games for $100, sign me up! It's foolish.
Duplicate accounts are a thing on consoles too. I had three active psn accounts in my household for one ps3.
Nonsense. The most obvious reason overspec on PC parts because there's going to be times you need to brute force half decent performance from an unoptimised game. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, I've been PC gaming on and off for the best part of 3 decades, every time I've cheaped out on a mid-low end build I've regretted it when said unoptimised game comes along.
Not even the OP agrees that AAA gaming is cheaper on console than on PC. His argument essentially hinges on "you'll buy more games tho. but if you buy games you weren't going to buy r u really saving tho?"
You can regularly buy games on release date for a lower price than on console.
Darryl M R
Member
This is true but Steam has a lower barrier to entry. You need a PC regardless of specs. For consoles you need the a hardware that is bought for gaming so I would assume Steam would have more users that never purchased but it is important to remember your point: consoles aren't excluded from multiple accounts since that was the measure I used when asking about Steam's health.
Would it help if I storyboard my argument for you since you word it as if you purposely left out the discussion on buying habits of console users vs PC users.
You really only need a 970 to brute force everything in a terribly optimised game which costs no where near $700-800(which would still run better than consoles on a 750ti in all cases except for something like an Arkham Knight).
You just skipped over a bunch of posts pointing to the exact number of paid games on steam from steamspy. 1 billion.