Support NeoGAF

[ScatheZombie]

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.

That's not irony. That's the difference between PC and console. While the console every-man is cycling through Madden and Call of Duty once a year, the PC every-man is playing Hearthstone on a machine less powerful than my smartphone.

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

Great PC games get ported to consoles, great console games stay on consoles.

alright, so you've delved into fanboy war shitposting. good game good effort

 

[Darryl M R]

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.

It was one post, and that number doesn't credit or discredit my argument. I asked for a number for my own reference.

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.

I know the OP was long but maybe you should check out the quote I added. My thread is talking about the average console gamer. You want to discuss something else.

 

[johnnydrama]

Great PC games get ported to consoles, great console games stay on consoles.

GameFAQ posts get leaked to NeoGAF. NeoGAF posts stay on NeoGAF.

 

[Sarcasm]

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.

This is talking about that damn batman game again isn't it?

I can run 60 FPS @ 1080. I can usually downsample games from 2K.

My specs? 4+ years old. GPU? A freaking GTX670.

I don't brute force anything. The only thing I do change in games is shadows.

It was one post, and that number doesn't credit or discredit my argument. I asked for a number for my own reference.

Can't remember all the facts but to use most of steam you need to purchase something. A bit only 5 USD+ but not doing that bars you from a lot of things including being counted in statistics I believe.

 

[kswiston]

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.

I have always gone mid range (currently have a R9 280x) and have never had a problem. I just don't by unoptimized games until they are years old and anything can run them. You're talking about a small handful of games a year. The reason most people here are still talking about Arkham Knight 6 months after the fact is that those cases are uncommon.

Meanwhile, I'm not seeing a ton of shoutouts for Fallout 4 or Just Cause 3 on console despite being a mess at launch.

 

[213372bu]

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.

Would it help if I told you I wrote out a post on that subject and a shorter post essentially TL;DR'ing it in hopes you would actually read it?

If you're going to be snarky at least read the posts in the thread you created.

 

[Enigmatic Rainbow]

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.

False, you don't need a Sony or Microsoft console to make an account associated with its particular network.

I also still don't really get the OP. So because you save money, you're actually really not saving money in the long run... because you can use that saved money to buy more games?

 

[Darryl M R]

Would it help if I told you I wrote out a post on that subject and a shorter post essentially TL;DR'ing it in hopes you would actually read it?

If you're going to be snarky at least read the posts in the thread you created.

It doesn't seem like it would help and it still seems like you aren't addressing the main point (which is reflected in the quote I added).

 

[Neo_Geo]

Yawn. Keep lying to yourself.

 

[Steel]

It was one post, and that number doesn't credit or discredit my argument. I asked for a number for my own reference.



I know the OP was long but maybe you should check out the quote I added. My thread is talking about the average console gamer. You want to discuss something else.

Maybe you should actually reread the post you quoted that addresses your quoted point about the average console gamer guy and the post at the top of this page that addresses the average PC gamer guy.

And to be clear once more: the average console gamer only buys about 8 games over a 5-8 year gen by console attach rates, they're not even the 6 game a year guy.

 

[Grief.exe]

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".

Come on breh.

I don't go to McDonald's and order extra large numbers one through seven, then blame the establishment when I can't finish the food and now I have diabetes.

You bought a GPU you don't need and games you will never play, yet you blame the establishment because you spent too much money. I'm just saying the blame resides elsewhere.

 

[QaaQer]

Not even the OP agrees that AAA gaming is cheaper on console than on PC.

That must be why the people with the least money all game on PC.

 

[Mufausa The 3rd]

I legit play console ports on PC only. I've had my PS4 since 2012 (Theoretically speaking). GTX 570, i7 2600K. I'm happy with the way how Valve and many other publishers/develops have helped popularized PC Gaming again. Legit, after seeing Resident Evil 5 at a local computer store by my house running at 60FPS/1080p. I lost my shit. Even after I got 1000G on that game for Xbox 360. I had to get a PC, just to play that game again. That was when I realized how different 30FPS vs 60FPS was. I was only 15 years old at the time.

 

[perfectsil]

OP thinks the average console gamer buys 6 games a year at release day? I think the vast majority of PC or console gamers have never bought a game on release day

 

[213372bu]

It doesn't seem like it would help and it still seems like you aren't addressing the main point (which is reflected in the quote I added).

I'll bold the part that addresses "the habits of PC gamers" and whether or not it affects whether one saves for you.

I'll just use your numbering or whatever.

(1) Yes, by definition you "save" by obtaining a product but with a reduced price. You buy that *thing* because you find it of value , (ie: you buy a washing machine to reduce the amount of stress and time it takes to wash clothes.)

Whenever a consumer purchases something they accept a value that is put upon the item they buy. By buying two AAA games of similar quality for $60 as opposed to one AAA game, of a similar quality, you are obtaining more "value" for the price you are willing to spend on games.

(3) If we're talking a typical console AAA consumer, then their habits would reflect that. You'd probably expect them to only buy AAA games and thus only spend that discounted amount they want on "games".

If we're talking the target Steam purchaser, with tons of games purchased, as long as they get the value out of their games they purchase they are "saving" by obtaining a vast majority of games at a certain price point (ie:$200) as opposed to consoles where they would get less money by purchasing games that are less cheap.
--

Either way, it's not "inherit" that one would spend money saved on other games, thus it isn't the fault of the nature of PC.

I'd say most people who budget or buy games on a "normal" basis would set up games they want and use the money they saved to the rest of their expenses. Again, they are "saving" because they get the full benefit of playing/enjoying those games at a lower total cost that could be used on the essentials.

 

[Enigmatic Rainbow]

That must be why the people with the least money all game on PC.

They might actually, considering how popular LoL is around the world.

 

[Steel]

They might actually, considering how popular LoL is around the world.

Between LoL, DOTA and Hearthstone, I don't think it's really a debate. All those games run on toasters that everyone owns, though.

Hell, China alone makes a great example of that.

 

[conman]

Do I buy more games on PC because they are cheaper? Absolutely.

Do I buy games I already own on consoles? If I really like them, yes.

Do I play or buy AAA games? Not really, and never at launch. If I only played AAA games, I'd switch back to primarily console gaming.

Do I play more games on PC than I ever did on console? Yes, and by a considerable margin. Games are cheap, high quality, and abundant on PC.

Does buying games on PC "save" me money? I have no idea and don't care in the slightest.

 

[QaaQer]

Come on breh.

I don't go to McDonald's and order extra large numbers one through seven, then blame the establishment when I can't finish the food and now I have diabetes.

You bought a GPU you don't need and games you will never play, yet you blame the establishment because you spent too much money. I'm just saying the blame resides elsewhere.

Do you think tobacco companies should shoulder any blame for damage they do? Sugary pop makers are just as evil IMO.

 

[Darryl M R]

I do think this thread is at a stand still, a lot of people are arguing that PC saves more money for them but not for the gamer I was talking about. A lot of interesting opposing points, some I disagree with some I agree with but I think it is important to remember how marketing influence gamers and how PC gamers receive different marketing and think on how that would affect someone switching over to the console.

I'm hoping the troll posts come to a minimum (keep the "snarkiness" and passion).


-

Not a stand still because one side isn't omitting defeat but it seems like we are repeating ourselves without new information explaining our thoughts differently. But thank you for people providing some statistics. I think having hard numbers are always helpful to frame a discussion.

 

[QaaQer]

They might actually, considering how popular LoL is around the world.

Fair dues.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

That must be why the people with the least money all game on PC.

This is actually absolutely true in Southeast Asia and is a big reason why PC gaming is so prolific here.

 

[NullPointer]

Consoles work out to be cheaper for me because I can buy the PC I want based upon work specs, not gaming specs.

If I'm buying a PC to game I'm going to want to deck it out a bit - not top of the line mind you, but somewhere roughly in that neighborhood. And even then I'll run into hardware compatibility issues and bad ports and KB+M advantage over controllers and a host of things that just bums me out and wastes my time and money.

For some people PC is the right choice, and the cheaper one. For others consoles will give them everything they need at a low price.

 

[Tagyhag]

Wait, I don't understand the point of this thread.

Are we just arguing about what's cheaper for a hypothetical regular console gamer?

Probably a console, all they're going to buy is Call of Duty and Madden.

 

[Dictator93]

And even then I'll run into hardware compatibility issues and bad ports and

HW compatibility is not a thing anymore really and console get more "bad ports" than PC, just FYI.

 

[QaaQer]

Wait, I don't understand the point of this thread.

Are we just arguing about what's cheaper for a hypothetical regular console gamer?

Probably a console, all they're going to buy is Call of Duty and Madden.

It's more a recognition that there is no one best platform and a push back against those who believe there is.

 

[StevieP]

It's more a recognition that there is no one best platform and a push back against those who believe there is.

If you're hardcore enough to register on GAF, you owe it to yourself to be educated enough about the most hardcore platform (which has the most benefits to a hardcore gamer as well)

 

[chaosblade]

While I haven't read the whole thread, the OP seems like an apples to oranges comparison.

A more accurate comparison would be comparing these PC gamers to the more hardcore console gamer that ends up with a large library of games at the end of a generation, likely across multiple consoles. If you want to compare the buys-3-games-a-year AAA gamer to a PC gamer, it would be the folks who play little more than the flavor of the month F2P games, or one or two competitive online games, or an MMO, or Minecraft, etc.

To answer the tl:dr, there's not really any way the answer isn't no. You're almost certainly spending more on hardware, spending the same amount on those AAA games, and optionally spending more by buying additional games during sales that wouldn't have been purchased on consoles.

That, and the savings aren't as big anymore anyway. Games take longer to get big discounts unless they bomb than they did several years ago. Steam sales in particular are a shadow of their former selves. Deals are harder to come by and take longer to appear, but it can still work out cheaper for the savvy buyer. But not for someone who doesn't buy much more than 3-4 AAA games at full price per year.

 

[conman]

I do think this thread is at a stand still, a lot of people are arguing that PC saves more money for them but not for the gamer I was talking about. A lot of interesting opposing points, some I disagree with some I agree with but I think it is important to remember how marketing influence gamers and how PC gamers receive different marketing and think on how that would affect someone switching over to the console.

I'm hoping the troll posts come to a minimum (keep the "snarkiness" and passion).


-

Not a stand still because one side isn't omitting defeat but it seems like we are repeating ourselves without new information explaining our thoughts differently. But thank you for people providing some statistics. I think having hard numbers are always helpful to frame a discussion.

The problem is that in your OP, you set us all up for a standstill. We're all just talking about a "hypothetical console gamer" that none of us on GAF actually represents. So we're all left only to either 1) speak for ourselves, or 2) speak out of our asses. Hence the standstill. For me and my gaming habits, I get a lot more bang for my buck on PC. But I have no idea if I spend more or less money overall. I just don't care to count.

If someone only plays a few major releases every year, it would be way too much hassle (money aside) to bother with a PC. And for them, they're probably buying games at launch, playing with their friends, and playing the same game solid for months at a time. They're not interested in "saving money." They're just interested in a very specific (console) experience.

 

[QaaQer]

HW compatibility is not a thing anymore really and console get more "bad ports" than PC, just FYI.

Source? Otherwise, lol. Consoles are lead paltform for virtually every AAA release BTW.

 

[Starviper]

I got Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Assassins Creed: Black Flag for free with my 970 when I bought it.

Got a code for Witcher 3 off ebay for 30$ before release

Got Battlefront and Fallout 4 for 40$ off GreenManGaming

You save a ton of money with PC games if you know how to shop around. Gotta invest in the hardware but you generally get a ton of use out of a PC beyond gaming alone.

 

[Hypron]

The problem is that in your OP, you set us all up for a standstill. We're all just talking about a "hypothetical console gamer" that none of us on GAF actually represents. So we're all left only to either 1) speak for ourselves, or 2) speak out of our asses. Hence the standstill. For me and my gaming habits, I get a lot more bang for my buck on PC. But I have no idea if I spend more or less money overall. I just don't care to count.

If someone only plays a few major releases every year, it would be way too much hassle (money aside) to bother with a PC. And for them, they're probably buying games at launch, playing with their friends, and playing the same game solid for months at a time. They're not interested in "saving money." They're just interested in a very specific (console) experience.

Yeah. I don't really get these threads. "X doesn't do what you think it does because it won't benefit this 'average person' I made up in my mind".

I played solely on PS4 this year and definitely spent a lot more money on games I would have if I had a decent PC. Every game is $10-20 more expensive (sometimes even more) and sales happen less often (and if you want to buy digital you can't shop around).

I definitely would have saved money on games by playing on PC, I don't know what this nebulous "average person" is even supposed to mean for me.

 

[the21O]

One positive for consoles is you can resale games. Of course PC's provide extra value by performing more functions.

 

[Dictator93]

Source? Otherwise, lol. Consoles are lead paltform for virtually every AAA release BTW.

Source is the fact that cheap PC hardware basically always performs the same as a console if not better (the DF PC is a classic example of this, or the potato masher mentioned a page back).

What is considered a bad port on PC is quite different than what is considered bad on console. For me a bad PC port is one that does not offer at least 60 hz support (preferably up to 144hz), has trouble wiith arbitrary resolutions up to 4K, cannot maintain 60hz on even the lowest settings on powerful hardware, or has inadequate control customisation.

Consoles games on the other hand perform at ~30fps and lower at times and people find the game to be a perfectly fine port at sub 1080p. What is a bad console port in light of these subjective differences? 15fps?

 

[DocSeuss]

One positive for consoles is you can resale games. Of course PC's provide extra value by performing more functions.

Is it really worth buying a game for sixty bucks and then selling it for five to ten dollars later on, if you're lucky? (most of my recent attempts at a trade-in were around 30 cents). And now you don't have the game anymore, so if you find you suddenly want to replay it again, you're SOL.

Trading is a waste of money. Better to get a game for $35 at launch and never trade it (like I did with Mad Max) than to buy it for a console at $60 and sell it for... the current trade value of $11.34.

I paid $35 and I get a game forever.

You paid $49 and you only got to keep it three months.

 

[toddhunter]

One positive for consoles is you can resale games.

The real point. If you buy a AAA game for $60 and later sell it for $50 it cost you $10 and the chunk of your soul destroyed from playing a modern AAA game.

If you couldn't resell console games and retail became irrelevant you would get bigger discounts.

 

[Coreda]

I don't even understand the point of the thread with the new quote in the OP.

The OP is expecting to build a gaming PC in 2016 but has created a thread attempting to raise a discussion whether PC games are cheaper at launch than console versions of the same game.

Many have pointed out that they never buy at full price even at launch but the counter-argument is that they had to do a little looking around for those cheaper prices. Well, some do to get greater discounts by keeping their eyes out for deals, but as others have posted often PC games can be cheaper than the console equivalent from the regular sources too.

So sure, PC gamers (certainly on GAF) perhaps are more savvy than console gamers with regards to finding deals but the savings are still there. If as a consumer one doesn't want those savings stick with console purchases I suppose.

 

[saunderez]

This is talking about that damn batman game again isn't it?.

No not Batman, I actually played that on PS4...Dead Rising 3 was it for me. Extremely disappointing performance there, which hasn't been improved to this very day.

But let's not pretend that unoptimised games are some unicorn.

 

[kswiston]

Is it really worth buying a game for sixty bucks and then selling it for five to ten dollars later on, if you're lucky? (most of my recent attempts at a trade-in were around 30 cents). And now you don't have the game anymore, so if you find you suddenly want to replay it again, you're SOL.

Trading is a waste of money. Better to get a game for $35 at launch and never trade it (like I did with Mad Max) than to buy it for a console at $60 and sell it for... the current trade value of $11.34.

I paid $35 and I get a game forever.

You paid $49 and you only got to keep it three months.

People who regularly trade in their games are more likely to treat game ownership as a 2-3 week rental service. If you trade in launch month, you can usually get back about 75% of what you paid. More with promotions.

 

[DocSeuss]

New quote in OP refers to other posters as motherfuckers.

Yo isn't this shit bannable 'cause GAF is a place for civil discussions?

 

[Springfoot]

Am I missing something here? The entire last half of the OP seems like a big ramble on poor impulse control and lack of understanding of your own personal habits regarding whether or not you'll actually use the products you're spending money on. That doesn't really have anything to do with the technical and financial differences between different videogame platforms, however.

ScatheZombie's post was on point regarding the differences between a casual console gamer vs. a hardcore PC gamer who are looking for two wildly different experiences. I don't think PC gaming is a good fit for everyone and have several cousins who fall definitively in the casual category and who would not benefit or enjoy PC gaming to any appreciable degree. Similarly, I'm not particularly into tinkering with cars and wouldn't enjoy some of the tuning and aftermarket work my friends do on their autos, although I know they enjoy the benefits of their work.

Not really sure what this thread is aiming to do?

 

[Hypron]

Is it really worth buying a game for sixty bucks and then selling it for five to ten dollars later on, if you're lucky? (most of my recent attempts at a trade-in were around 30 cents). And now you don't have the game anymore, so if you find you suddenly want to replay it again, you're SOL.

Trading is a waste of money. Better to get a game for $35 at launch and never trade it (like I did with Mad Max) than to buy it for a console at $60 and sell it for... the current trade value of $11.34.

I paid $35 and I get a game forever.

You paid $49 and you only got to keep it three months.

Some people resell games within a few days of buying them and get more money back.

I personally would never even consider doing that. I like taking my time playing games and not have a sort of self-imposed deadline telling me "if you don't finish this game quick you won't get much money back!".

 

[QaaQer]

New quote in OP refers to other posters as motherfuckers.

Yo isn't this shit bannable 'cause GAF is a place for civil discussions?

Pretty sure he is referring to 'non-pcgaf retail game buyers'.

 

[DocSeuss]

Am I missing something here? The entire last half of the OP seems like a big ramble on poor impulse control and lack of understanding of your own personal habits regarding whether or not you'll actually use the products you're spending money on. That doesn't really have anything to do with the technical and financial differences between different videogame platforms, however.

ScatheZombie's post was on point regarding the differences between a casual console gamer vs. a hardcore PC gamer who are looking for two wildly different experiences. I don't think PC gaming is a good fit for everyone and have several cousins who fall definitively in the casual category and who would not benefit or enjoy PC gaming to any appreciable degree. Similarly, I'm not particularly into tinkering with cars and wouldn't enjoy some of the tuning and aftermarket work my friends do on their autos, although I know they enjoy the benefits of their work.

Not really sure what this thread is aiming to do?

Doesn't really matter. If someone says "PC gaming is more expensive," they are simply objectively wrong. It is beyond easy to save money on the PC as opposed to consoles, making PC Gaming the objectively cheaper hobby. No one cares what the mass market wants, because these conversations are happening between these core gamers, not casuals.

Pretty sure he is referring to 'non-pcgaf retail game buyers'.

So he's just being uncivil then. We all good.

 

[zer0das]

I honestly doubt I save any money on PC, because I probably just spend more on games with any potential "savings."

That being said, I'd love to get a Wii U but Nintendo keeping software prices at nearly full value for so long is really hard for me to justify when I can get most games I want in the realm of $20-30 on PC. And as low as $3-5. That being said, the number of games I buy on console is way lower than I have ever purchased on PC. I have probably bought like 10 times as many PC games as my combined total across every console I have ever owned. And I bought a lot of Wii and DS games.

And even if I did save money, I probably spend it on hardware tweaks every few years.

 

[Miker]

The quoted post in the first OP, which the OP himself says sums up what he's trying to say, has almost nothing to do with the thread title, or the remainder of OP's post.

Huh. Well, okay.

 

[Battlechili]

I imagine that not every single AAA title will be bought by said gamers on Day 1. Everyone tends to have their own interests in mind, and oftentimes people may go back a while into the future and try out new products that they otherwise would not have. True, they would be spending money they otherwise would not have, but being a AAA title or whatever it was, oftentimes these are games that are part of a series, and if someone were to buy one at a lower price and discover that they like the game, they might be more inclined to purchase later and/or other releases in the same series at a lower price, at which point they are spending less than they would have otherwise spent on said titles.

Just one potential situation that could be deemed as "saving money" on PC. I mean yes, this is one single hypothetical situation, but I would be inclined to expect that such could occur fairly reasonably, considering how sales tend to work on PC. Sales very often attract customers who would have never tried out titles in the first place, and these purchases can attract such people to other titles in the same series.

 

[Trogdor1123]

This is so stupid, both parties can get games on day 1 for cheap. Both have great exclusives. Both are more expensive in some ways than others.

Jesus people, admit that both are great and that both fill different niches. Stop being so damn narrow minded.

 

[Darryl M R]

New quote in OP refers to other posters as motherfuckers.

Yo isn't this shit bannable 'cause GAF is a place for civil discussions?

I directly quoted someone that is referring to console-to-pc gamer and not to pc user. I did not want to censor his wording when I was adding it to my OP.

Spoiler

Seriously why are you trolling at this point?