wii vs. 360 vs. ps3

[dragonfire]

which of the three new systems do you want? Why?

[dragonfire]

Where is the poll? Can someone help me

[CornPuff]

umm, try editing your first post, their should be some options on the bottom.

Also, don't you mean (360 and Wii) Vs (PS3 and Wii)? :P

[dragonfire]

no. Its a every man for themself smack down. wires and gears will fly.

[johnny139]

Wii. Duh.

Half the price of 360, a quater of the price of a PS3, classic games for download, motion sensing, multi-plat games with Wiimote bonuses, the list goes on.

Wii hands down. 360 in a close second.

[dragonfire]

I agree johny.


I think/hope ps3 will fail.

[CornPuff]

My vote goes to the 360, with wii close second.

I think/hope not that the ps3 will fail. i don't want to buy one, but i do like some healthy market competition.

[netherspirit]

Added the poll for you.

[Chimpy]

umm, try editing your first post, their should be some options on the bottom.

Also, don't you mean (360 and Wii) Vs (PS3 and Wii)? :P

No it is more Wii and 360 Vs PS3.

[dragonfire]

thanks netherspirit, you rule!

[Jandars_Hope]

I voted Wii just because i'm wanting alot of the games for it! But if i were just given one of them for free (Yeah-like that's ever going to happen) i'd pick the PS3!

[Agent Minivann]

If I had the money I'd get a Wii and a 360. I'll pass on the PS3, and just buy more games/heroscape stuff. I want the 360 for Halo at the very least, and then the Wii for the coolness factor. I might even get my wife into video games with the Wii. It's never going to happen with the other consoles.

Then there's always the article that was mentioned on slashdot about if Sony sells so many million PS3's they will be ripe for a takeover bid by someone like Microsoft. That kind of gives me the creeps.

[vernz]

i want the ps3 and maybe the wii ive gotten every ps on day one except i wont be getting ps3 that early this time the price is outragous

[CupidsArt]

Well I'm a 360 kinda' guy. I used o be big into PS2 but hey, they weren't making any games I wanted to play and all of my buddies play 360 so, I went XBOX.

My GF on the other hand is REAL big into Nintendo and will be getting a Wii. She also digs PS still and hasn't decided on whether she wants to get the PS3 as well but is slowly leaning towards no.

The only reason I would have for buying a Wii is Smash Bros. and it's kinda' dumb to buy a system for 1 game, :?

[dra(gon)]

i love this video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OZJw9sbOTsc

i got an 360 and will buy a wii the ps3 comes march(europe) :( so is no differnec.

the cheap wii and nintendo games are one big + for wii.

sad im only about sonys ps3 lies. :evil:

[yagyuninja]

I was thinking I'd be OK with just two (though the reality is I won't be getting any for a while) THIS VIDEO (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=wmv&id=13330) made me want a PS3. Anyone got $1250 to spare for a fella that really needs it for a very important reason?

[dra(gon)]

the video looks cool, but it is not that hires hd from that sony talks.
br has al lots of rmb for good games. but sony set oall on hd all games sould look over the top.

but the game play is from the ps2, the wii is not so strong but zelda looks not ugly(mario tenis on gc look great too)

[yagyuninja]

I guess the only thing that ever sways me from one platform to another is developers anyway. I want to get an HD system (since I have an HDTV already), so it's probably just goign to be exclusives that tip me in one direction or the other.

Halo 3 will do it for sure, so Sony only has so much time.

[Tiberius]

It would be increadibly silly of me to get anything other than a PS3 because I have the PS and PS2 games that it will play and nothing else. I have no intentions of flushing hundreds of dollars in games down teh toilet because I change game systems.

[Sweetcurse]

The 360 is a rip off nearly useless machine (ok Im exagerating, but I don't like it)

I don't like microsoft's tactics and how they killed the xbox so soon. Also, the PS3 is a better system by much. Blu-ray is tons better and people will be drooling for it eventually I'm sure. The PS3 also gives you HD playback out of the box and better connections. Besides I already have a huge library.

I also want a Wii.

[0rbital]

Xbox 360 and Test Drive Unlimited has ruined my free time. My Heroscape stuff is untouched and I still haven't even played with wave 5 or castles yet! I'm too addicted to TDU I just have to wait for it to wear off ;)

[thehandofzarquon]

It would be increadibly silly of me to get anything other than a PS3 because I have the PS and PS2 games that it will play and nothing else. I have no intentions of flushing hundreds of dollars in games down teh toilet because I change game systems. What, you can't keep your old PS2? Buying a 360 and a Wii while not trading in your PS2 will probably still be cheaper than a PS3 (http://makeadecisiondamnyou.ytmnd.com/) :lol:

[Drumline3469]

LOL!!! The Wii will be so much fun. I can't wait!!

[DarkDino]

hope y'all know that the lowest possible thing for the PS3 is $600 and the highest bundle being $5,895!

[Tiberius]

Wow, thats a decent used car!

[Fallen Templar]

Smash Bros Brawl and Halo 3. I gettin a Wii, I own 360

[cbs42]

Sony is going to crash and burn. Blu-ray with go the way of betamax tapes (a previous Sony blunder).

There's my 2 cents of smack talk for ya.
;)

[tech boy]

Well, because Nintendo is the only of the three that JUST makes video games, I would get a Wii. Ya I know the x box 360 and the PS3 are great and all but they arnt devoted to making games only. Microsoft and Sony will drop there systems if they arnt making a very good profit and that's because they have other things in there company that they might need to pour some resources into. Nintendo is a video game company. Its what they do. Not only that but they have a promising future because of one good reason. There making games for all types of games. Including there future customers. I'm not bashing the other companies, I'm just speaking whats on my mind for the future of games.

[nyys]

You did look at the date of the last post in this thread right?

[tech boy]

I just decided to speak my mind. (no)

[Greyelephant]

I'm not sure why anybody wouldn't choose "all of them". Give yourself a chance to experience gaming from all different aspects.

Of course with that said, the only one I own is the Wii. The PS3 is too expensive. I've thought about buying an X-box 360 several times, but haven't brought myself to actually go through with it.

[tech boy]

I get plenty of chances to play a 360 or a PS3 at my friends. I have a Wii and a gamecube so I'm at least not right now, planning to get a 360 or PS3.

[SamIam4191]

Wii Mostly because the games are good and it plays Gamecube games

[jschild]

Well, because Nintendo is the only of the three that JUST makes video games, I would get a Wii. Ya I know the x box 360 and the PS3 are great and all but they arnt devoted to making games only. Microsoft and Sony will drop there systems if they arnt making a very good profit and that's because they have other things in there company that they might need to pour some resources into. Nintendo is a video game company. Its what they do. Not only that but they have a promising future because of one good reason. There making games for all types of games. Including there future customers. I'm not bashing the other companies, I'm just speaking whats on my mind for the future of games.

Except, as an experiment, go to metacritic.com

Bring up all the games that Xbox 360 has, and see how many rate a 75% or higher. You will see that the Xbox has 253 games that rate that high.

Next, check out the PS3. You will see it has 161 games that rate that high.

Next, look at the Wii. It has 93 games that rate that high.

Somehow, the so-called "non pure" gaming systems have FAR more games than the wii that are highly rated. You can also see that they also have a far greater percentage of good games overall. They have better graphics also. They also have multi-media capabilities such as Netflix and media sharing (even things like Hulu with PlayOn).

Taking into account everything that is required, they don't even cost that much more (if you are talking about buying everything for a family of 4, Xbox is actually cheaper than Wii).

They have both family games and a large amount of hardcore games. Wii has tons of family games, many superior to offerings on the other 2 consoles but its hardcore game selection is a joke.

Wii has it's place, but it is in no way superior to either of the other 2 considering it is by far the most limited of all the consoles for the price.

[ElvenEnvy]

I own a PS3 and I'm very happy with it.

When DVDs phase out and everyone has to buy a BluRay player the PS3's real value will be realized.

I did the math for my friend who got the 360 when it came out. With what he and his brother have paid for Xbox Live and the internet upgrade required to play it for so long he could have bought a PS3, 3 extra controllers, an eyetoy, a microphone/headset, and a game. Throw in the additional cost of the two systems he owns and he'd even have another PS3 and a few more games.

I find that the 360 really isn't worth it compared to the PS3 if you're going to play online just from the subscription fee.

My PS3 has never so much as overheated, both his 360's have red-ringed twice.

There's plenty of good things about the Xbox- plenty of exclusive games, more system linking capability, faster loading, large online community.

The Wii is pretty foriegn to me, but I've enjoyed my limited experiences with them.

[Aldin]

I'm not sure why anybody wouldn't choose "all of them". Give yourself a chance to experience gaming from all different aspects.

Of course with that said, the only one I own is the Wii. The PS3 is too expensive. I've thought about buying an X-box 360 several times, but haven't brought myself to actually go through with it.

I could have written that post ;)

~Aldin, whose local TRU is offering a $50 Gift Card with the purchase of an 80GB PS3 tomorrow

[Rew]

Rew's Console Confessional
The true story of a PS3 owner, Wii admirer, and loather of the 360.



Me and the PS3
(because "The PS3 and I" doesn't rhyme)

It's got blu-ray! It's fantastic in spec! Yes, she is a hot date. But looks only get you so far. I've had much more fun, with her older sister, the PS2, thus far. As most of you, and the whole industry knows, the PS3 game substance and titles are a little bit shallow. I have spent more hours watching DVD and bluray on the PS3 than gaming. So, to stretch the analogy to its limit: she is good eye candy to have on your arm but leaves a little bit desired when it comes to meaningful interactions. Gaming bliss is not here yet. Maybe the PS3 will mature well?

And that's Sony's bet too. Most games I play on the PS3 are not "technical marvels". Gameplay sells me more than anything else, which is why the quirky girl with glasses, the Wii, is appealing. So just why did I buy a PS3 than? It's for the same reason I bought a PS2. I bought the state of the art at the time and played the heck out of it for well over 7 years. The longevity case is what PS3 makes and even if doesn't pan out, by continuing to only have lackluster titles, it still plays anything I need to see in eye-candy vision (blu-ray).

Yes, the surface is wonderful of the PS3 but when you get into her core, her technological marvel is also a problem. The PS3's Achilles' heel is its emotion-chip-cell-processor-whatever-the-heck being a nightmare to program for. It's a dark heart. This means higher barrier of entry for developers and, in turn, the less appealing titles we see on the shelf. Sony realizes this. They will hopefully make a correction in that space with its next gen console being more developer friendly. We buy consoles for the games after-all and Sony is already making strides in this area with new dev releases.

I have hope that she, the PS3, may grow into a stunning and wicked beauty to steal my gamers heart forever.


Why Wii Love

There is much more innovation and freshness for that underdog Wii than the other two consoles. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, and Nintendo's necessity is battling the two giants. Its only hope is to not fight on the field of the hardcore game player, but instead, carve a new niche, create a new market, the "Wii sport fit mom". Also, courting the smaller developers, and maintaining their hot iconic titles go a long way as well.

The argument about game ratings being a good marker of actual game play value for a system doesn't hold much water with me. Some of the games I have loved most have sub-par ratings. I will agree though, in the absence of anything else, it is the only marker one could use to try and get a sense of a system's game playing gestalt. My argument is that most ratings and reviews are steeped in the stew of the critic. That same critic is often too close and biased to the subject to understand just why that game resonates with a certain crowd: a new crowd.

Rightly, or wrongly, I prescribe to the belief that the expert often doesn't see the emerging and new as well as the laymen. If my love of PS3 is based on both on surface and promise, my attraction for the Wii is based solely on the fact that the Wii will continue to dazzle us and do the unexpected. XBox will copy and try to invent in the same line with little success and embarrassing transparentness at times.



The Sony Nintendo Connection

And so my feelings about the Wii lead me to wishes that Nintendo would wipe the floor with its two competitors. If you know your video game history you could even put a good "moral" spin on that stance to stir devout armies of mushroom eating plumbers to your cause. Sony has a dark past. It's just Sony makes such sexy products that I don't see them giving up their hold over my living room anytime soon. My PS3 feeds a Sony Bravia flat-screen and I make no illusions that I find very strong brand loyalty to them. My Bravia replaced a Sony Trinitron CRT.

But I'm "old school". Which is what old people say to try and not sound too old I suppose. I grew up with Atari and NES and I still find myself playing all of "The Legend of Zelda" every four or five years or so. It still counts if it is an emulated rom played on my computer, right?



The Mean Green Machine

And so I've avoided and skated around talking about this console. It's the lime green monster with an "X" on it. The stylings are like some Mountain Dew "do the extreme" and base jump off your roof with a controller in your hand box. Admittedly I know far less about this system than the other two.

But let's just get this out here and admit it: the Xbox live service Microsoft put together shames the other two consoles as if they were both puppies who just wet your kitchen floor. Wii and PS3 both made attempts in the online space but are, frankly, far behind the ease and appeal of the Xbox service. It's one thing Microsoft got right and I, like its competing consoles, are envious.

The problem I have with Xbox is because Microsoft is pure evil. I'm kidding ... mostly. They are a company like any other. Well, ok, not like any other because they are a HUGE company, with a huge amount of power and weight to throw around and that is not a good thing in a little entertainment industry like the game industry. It is not healthy.

To me, just as in the film/movie industry, the large publishers/producers/media companies remain the bane of innovation and small game devs. If I want re-skinned FPS shooters, sequels, prequels, and cash cows till my eyes bleed, I'd get an Xbox360. I'll admit PS3 is suffering from some of this lack of spark but the whole entertainment industry is. It's expensive and risky to "do new things". I can appreciate that from a capitalist business sense. But as a consumer it will be a dark dark day for me when the next Halo comes out. I don't care. I've played that game before and no matter how much you try and tell me it is different because it has this weapon or that vehicle it just remains unconvincing.

This is why I just cannot "vote with my dollars" and buy the "X" monster. It is a good system, but it doesn't play anything I have to play, and it is built from a cancerous growth in the video game industry. Strong words but the developers under the large publishing corps. always produce mediocre titles, or at the very best, titles that are never what they should be. Their greatness is squeezed and crushed under the weight of their overlords.



Rew's Altars of Technolust

So in closing, while Sony owns my living room, Apple rules my work, online life, and well, my life. "Oh, the true colors show now." Settle down PC lovers. I also occasionally bootcamp over to my Windows partition on my Mac to play X-box, err, I mean PC games I care about. And therein lay what I think the other little truth, or at-least my feelings, that the XBox360 is just a dumbed down PC, re-skinned, and made to do one thing: play games well.

So, curse me as an Apple-fan boy. It's not all wrong but it is far from the whole story.

I've always been fascinated at why people feel so passionate about their choice of computer and console. Occasionally you will see this in GM vs Ford vs Foreign style car debates but it is almost borderline political or religious fervor when it comes to consoles and computers. I like to think my passions are a bit more moderate. Truly I love computers in all shapes and forms it's just I happen to enjoy using certain brands more than others.

I'm never proselytizing or looking to create converts. I never feel the need really. Good products sell themselves.

I'll agree with you where I agree and respectfully disagree where I don't, but with these computer debates, as with others, when the passions run deep only an open mind, and willingness to experience the other side, is worth any attempt at true discussion and exploration.

Thus ends another magnum opus of Rew. Will you ever read me again? Can you have 10 minutes of your life back? Sorry. No refunds.

"Insert Quarter to Continue"
(or for the love of all creation pull the plug and stop the never ending flow of words!)

[jschild]

But where is the huge innovation that the Wii has? For every good game (and there are some really good ones) there are 20 that totally blow on it.

Yes the Wii has Wii Fit and Wii Active. Which is great if I need to exercise. Boom Blox is great. But I want meat on my games and the Wii is 90% mini-game candy. 95% of it's games would be better using a regular controller.

It's not a problem of pretty but dumb for the other 2 consoles, though both of them have games that suffer from that. The Wii has far more ugly but dumb games than the other two. It has its place in the spectrum, but let's not overstate how "innovative" the Wii is. It's got more trash than both the other two consoles combined because no one want's to make these "innovative" games.

Wii "could" be the king of innovation, but I haven't seen anyone step up for that title for real on it.

Where are the sport games outside of Golf? (which it does awesome at).

Where are the great racing games (outside of Mario Cart?)

Where are the great RPGs?

Where are the great FPS's?

It excels at minigames, golf, and some platformers, and 90% of the good games it has, would be just as good, or better, with a regular controller.

This is not Nintendo's fault - it is the game makers, but no matter how amazing or innovative the hardware is, if no one uses it, it's just a white brick.

EDIT: What games (and I mean multiple games here) make the Wii unique as a system?(Because of their simularity, I consider the Xbox and PS3 virtually the same, except that the Xbox is far easier to develop for).

[Dignan]

I own all three systems and so I'll toss in my two cents on this subject.

I got the Wii first just a little bit after it came out. I was drawn in by the cool new control system and the great stable of first party games. However, I quickly found myself wanting to play "real" games. By real, I mean the more "hardcore" or "gamer's games". The Wii simply doesn't have the great third party titles like Grand Thefy Auto, Halo 3, Gears of War 2, Call of Duty 4, Soul Calibur 4, Assassin's Creed, etc, etc. This list goes on and on.

So, I was off to buy either the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Two things influeneced my choice. One, Xbox Live. It's simply a great system for playing online with other friends online. It's so seemlessly integrated with the Xbox 360 system and how you play games that it makes hooking up with friends a breeze. Playing online with the Wii is a real chore and the PS3 is only marginally better IMO.

The other reason I went with the Xbox was the exclusive titles that they get. Halo 3 and Gears 2 were bigger draws to me than Metal Gear Solid and Little Big Planet. Obviously, this is just a matter of opinion. I eventually snagged a PS3 back when I upgraded my living room TV and needed a Blu-Ray player (PS3s were the same price as Blu Ray players at the time, so I saw no reason not to get the PS3).

The Xbox gets by far the most play. I do enjoy some gaming on the other two systems, but not nearly as much. The Wii really suffers because it takes a rather unique title to outperform on it's weaker hardware. For instance, I recently started playing the Wii again when the new Tiger Woods came out (with the new Motion Plus control). That golf experience simply isn't possible on the other two systems.

The PS3 gets play when I break our Little Big Planet or Metal Gear, but that's about it. It's a fine system, but it's really just my Blu Ray player. If I didn't have the Xbox I would have a ton more games for it and would play it a lot more.

I have a ton of old friends from college on Xbox Live and it's such an easy way to keep in touch with them. Everyone has a mic and you can easily keep tabs on your friends and setup times to play, etc.

[ReverendBayes]

It would be increadibly silly of me to get anything other than a PS3 because I have the PS and PS2 games that it will play and nothing else. I have no intentions of flushing hundreds of dollars in games down teh toilet because I change game systems.


Wait...I read that the PS3 is *not* backwards compatible with PS2 games.

Can someone who knows for sure post?

Thanks!

[jschild]

I think it has a very limited number of games that it can work with, but they are finally supposed to be fixing that. However, that fix is not live, and therefore, still doesn't count.

[nyys]

The reason Nintendo (and therefore the Wii) is best, one word... Mario.

Mario games have always been my favorite and are the reason I stick with Nintendo each time I buy a console.

I do enjoy the 'harcore' games, but I prefer the the whole look and feel of the Mario world.

Though I still say the best game of all time was on the original NES console... The Legend of Zelda. I'm sure the fact that I was 12 when it came out has a lot to do with why I still remember it so fondly, and I've yet to play a game that has matched it since.

[jschild]

So you buy a Wii for Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros and Mario Cart?

That's not alot of games to buy a system for - They are great games, don't get me wrong, but its not like Nintendo is overflowing with A list Mario games.

[Aldin]

Hmmmm...

Out of curiousity, I have two questions that I suspect say a lot about which system you prefer:

1) How often do you buy console games?
2) What type of console games do you play?

I specified console because I find my handheld experiences tend to be different. For me it's

1) Six or seven games per year.
2) RPG, Strategy, Adventure(platformer)

The idea that any system has 50+ titles over 75% makes it an acceptable choice to me in that fashion. I simply never get around to owning 50 titles for any given system. And I haven't seriously played an FPS game since I beat the free part of Doom.

As best I can tell, all the best RPG and Strategy games are currently being made for the DS (yes, I am still playing FF:Tactics A2, thanks for asking). Oblivion and Bioshock are games I kinda want to play, but they're a bit FPSey for me. Zelda, Metroid and Mario are the world's premiere Adventure(platformer) games.

So it was the Wii for me. I occasionally crave the gorgeous looking Square Enix games on the PS3 and I sometimes wonder about the FPS/RPG hybrids on the 360, but I'm pleased with my choice as long as I have a DS to take care of my serious nerdly game cravings.

~Aldin, impressed by the high level of discourse here on the subject

[nyys]

So you buy a Wii for Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros and Mario Cart?

That's not alot of games to buy a system for - They are great games, don't get me wrong, but its not like Nintendo is overflowing with A list Mario games.

Don't forget Mario Baseball, Tennis, and Golf (though the latter two don't exist yet for the Wii). Also there is the new Mario Adventure game that in on the horizon (can't remember the name).

I actually only own Mario Kart for the Wii so far. We've had it since March (got the Wii for Christmas this past year) and we still play the heck out of it, just never gets dull. The other reason for buying the Wii in my house was Wii Sports, until we got Mario Kart, we played it religiously, and I can't wait until Wii Resort comes out (basically Wii Sports II).

Aldin hit it on the head for me in his post above. I only buy maybe 3-5 games a year, so cataloge of 100s of games isn't a reason to prefer one console over the other. Especially since I got enough of the 1st person shooter/war game stuff out of my system while I was in college playing Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom II, and Quake (I blame those titles for not graduating on time :) ).

EDIT: The Red Alert series didn't help either, though now we're talking PC games. Also Mortal Kombat II was played round the clock in my dorm, not to mention Techmo Bowl. Hmmm... maybe it was games in general that was my downfall in school.

[jschild]

Indeed, and while I won't 'buy" 50 games for either console, I will easily rent that many without trying.

For me, I like a wide variety of games.

RPG's I love - so the Wii fails horribly there. Both the Xbox and PS3 have real choices in both pure RPG's and RPG Hybrids, with the Xbox winning overall by a small bit probably due to exclusives like Mass Effect. But it's close enough that both are good choices.

Sports? - Except for Golf, there is no discussion. Wii loses hard.

FPS's? Again, not even a choice, Xbox or PS3.

Puzzle Games? great choices all around, but PS3 and Xbox win because of quality games like Braid and Peggle. Honestly, anyone would be happy with any system here though.

Family, Kid Friendly, Co-op family games? Good choices on all three, but here is where Wii finially trashes the competition. There are so many top tier choices that Wii walks away the clear winner.

Platformers? This gets murky due to the vast amount of hybrids, but for best games, I'd give it to the Wii, but for the most variety, sorry, but the Xbox and PS3 simply have more quality games, even if their best ones don't beat the Wii's very small handful of A+ titles.

Fighting games? No choice, Wii loses again horribly to the other two. It has exactly one good fighting game.

Racing games? Another slaughter as Wii only has one good title.

Multiplayer games? No contest as the Xbox wins, with PS3 behind it and Wii so far behind its a joke.

Strategy Games? Xbox probably, due to real RTS's like Halo Wars, though there are a few decent games in all catagories.

Extra's? Both PS3 and Xbox shatter the Wii here, as it cannot really do much beyond play games, while the Xbox has Netflix native and true media sharing, as does the PS3, who only lacks Netflix native (but can do it through PlayOn), and comes with Blu-Ray.

The Wii simply lacks a real stable of A list games, and a variety of said games. If they could get a A+ RPG, some strategy games, and a little more depth and variety, it would be in the lead by far more - but it owns as a central hub for families with young children to play together.

The others own for older and more serious and/or varied gamers.

[jschild]

So you buy a Wii for Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros and Mario Cart?

That's not alot of games to buy a system for - They are great games, don't get me wrong, but its not like Nintendo is overflowing with A list Mario games.

Don't forget Mario Baseball, Tennis, and Golf (though the latter two don't exist yet for the Wii). Also there is the new Mario Adventure game that in on the horizon (can't remember the name).

I actually only own Mario Kart for the Wii so far. We've had it since March (got the Wii for Christmas this past year) and we still play the heck out of it, just never gets dull. The other reason for buying the Wii in my house was Wii Sports, until we got Mario Kart, we played it religiously, and I can't wait until Wii Resort comes out (basically Wii Sports II).

Aldin hit it on the head for me in his post above. I only buy maybe 3-5 games a year, so cataloge of 100s of games isn't a reason to prefer one console over the other. Especially since I got enough of the 1st person shooter/war game stuff out of my system while I was in college playing Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom II, and Quake (I blame those titles for not graduating on time :) ).

But those are not real "Mario" games in the sense of being A list titles. And Wii sports is a nice tech demo for me, but other than bowling, it never gets touched at anyone's house that I know. But we do love the bowling :)

[nyys]

Real enough for me, but I know where you're coming from.

I guess it's all in what your looking for in a game/console. I love the cartoony feel of the Mario World, so any title that has it I end up enjoying.

I also don't play nearly enough anymore to justify renting games, I think that may be the real separation here. There is no real variety for me anymore, though that will probably change soon since my son is very much into video games now (he's six).

Loves the Wii, and when he uses up his hour a day allowance, he heads for the computer, when that is up, he asks for the 1,000,001th time for a DS.

Only a matter of time before he starts talking about other consoles. I think the fact that I finally have a gaming partner again will go a long way in diversifying again... but I'll always come back to the consistent favorite for me... anything Nintendo.

[Bonecrusher]

Indeed, and while I won't 'buy" 50 games for either console, I will easily rent that many without trying.

For me, I like a wide variety of games.

RPG's Zelda Twilight Princess

FPS's? Not a fan.

Family, Kid Friendly, Co-op family games? Good choices on all three, but here is where Wii finially trashes the competition. There are so many top tier choices that Wii walks away the clear winner.

Fighting games? I think Brawl is better than anything Xbox or PS3 has and, personally, I don't care if how many times I play Brawl (and I have probably played it thousands). For me, one great game defeats many good games.

Racing games? Not a huge fan, Mario Kart is fine for me, even if it is one game.

Multiplayer games? For me Xbox & PS3 don't even have something that compares to Brawl (probably because I don't like FPS) and MK is decent too, so I prefer the Wii.

Strategy Games? Xbox probably, due to real RTS's like Halo Wars, though there are a few decent games in all catagories. Agreed.

Extra's? Both PS3 and Xbox shatter the Wii here, as it cannot really do much beyond play games, while the Xbox has Netflix native and true media sharing, as does the PS3, who only lacks Netflix native (but can do it through PlayOn), and comes with Blu-Ray. Agreed.



Comments in bold. That is why I prefer the Wii.

[jschild]

Oh I fully, agree, I just wish Nintendo's develpers didn't limit themselves to only that cartoony world.

He will ask for other consoles - Mine is six and has already learned how to download demos on the Xbox to try out games, when not asking for a DS also :) - well, him and my wife both asking for one.

[nyys]

Oh I fully, agree, I just wish Nintendo's develpers didn't limit themselves to only that cartoony world.

He will ask for other consoles - Mine is six and has already learned how to download demos on the Xbox to try out games, when not asking for a DS also :) - well, him and my wife both asking for one.

Great, sounds like I may be stepping out on Nintendo in the near future. :)

[jschild]

RPG's Zelda Twilight PrincessZelda is so not a RPG. A great game, but not a RPG.

Great, sounds like I may be stepping out on Nintendo in the near future. :smile:

There is simply so much more variety and depth - I love many Wii games, but Nintendo's foolishly choose to limit themselves with a deliberatly weaker console with no non-gaming extra's. If they had just buffed it to near Xbox power, and added some real extra's, even with an extra cost, there would be one true winner to the console wars, instead of 2 seperate winners.

[Eclipse]

If they had just buffed it to near Xbox power, and added some real extra's, even with an extra cost, there would be one true winner to the console wars, instead of 2 seperate winners.

For what its worth, Nintendo is far far ahead in the console wars this time around. Its just that they did it without most of the warriors who fought in the previous campaigns.

[jbbnbsmith]

I'm in the Wii camp. If I were to buy another console though it would be a PS2 because of the HUGE library of games which can be bought pretty cheaply used.

Here's where I spend my time on the Wii -

Grand Slam Tennis (motion plus) - I love this game!
Tiger Woods PGA 10 (motion plus) - amazing control & disc golf too!
EA Sports Active - a great workout program with lots of variety & real results
Wii Fit - weight tracking, yoga, & mini games
Wii Sports - Bowling is still a favorite
World of Goo - One of the best games I've ever played
Boom Blox - looking forward to the sequel

Oddly enough I'm not into the Mario games, though my kids like the Melee and Super Smash Bros games. I guess I'm just too old!

Then there are all of the Gamecube games we own as well.

I know that hard core gamers will read that list and just sigh, but I like being up and moving around when I play. I like breaking a sweat and staying active since I sit a lot in my job. And I don't have time anymore to invest in serious games that require lots of searching and figuring out things (like Resident Evil - great game though!). So I like a game I can just pop in and start playing.

I guess I'm one of those "Wii sports fitness moms" someone mentioned a few posts back! :lol:

[Ted_Danson]

For what its worth, Nintendo is far far ahead in the console wars this time around. Its just that they did it without most of the warriors who fought in the previous campaigns.

I just do not agree with that statement. Because Nintendo has milked a gimmick, yes, they are selling Wii's like madness, but that does not put them "far far ahead".

I have a strong feeling that Wii will lose a lot of steam if they don't re-invent themselves for "gamers".

There are a lot of people who "loved" their Wiis when they were first released, but haven played them in months because it's boring.

[nyys]

Wii Active. :thumbsup: A simply amazing workout considering it's a video game. I supplement my gym routine with Wii Active. Makes it a lot easier to get the 'off day' cardio in.

[jschild]

If they had just buffed it to near Xbox power, and added some real extra's, even with an extra cost, there would be one true winner to the console wars, instead of 2 seperate winners.

For what its worth, Nintendo is far far ahead in the console wars this time around. Its just that they did it without most of the warriors who fought in the previous campaigns.

In terms of console sales alone, you are right. In terms of games sold overall, then the others are winning. That might not seem like much, but console makers get a % of every game sold, so more sales equals more money. And I Wish to goodness people would stop saying that Wii Sports is the top selling game of all time. It is not. No one buys that game, it comes with the console.

EDIT: Wii Play is not really deserving of the list too, since you only buy it really for the controller and it IS a tech demo.

Wii Fit and Mario Kart are amazing sellers however at 18 and 15 million each.

EDIT 2: Xbox 360 also has the highest game attach rate of any of the consoles (IE, how many games each console buyer gets for that console). Doesn't mean anything beyond that xbox 360 users buy lots of games however.

[Aldin]

I have a strong feeling that Wii will lose a lot of steam if they don't re-invent themselves for "gamers".

Odd. My impression is that Nintendo is raking in cash hand over fist because they've found a way to take a device which normally targets males between 16-24 and make it accessable for both genders and all ages over six or so. They figured out that a lot of people like playing games... they just don't like playing games where you need the reflexes of a viper and get rewarded in blood spatter.

There's always going to be a hardcore market - and I hope Nintendo will try to appeal to it a bit, but I'm mostly in it to have a fun experience. Nintendo gets that far better than Sony or Microsoft.

~Aldin, kinda a gamer and kinda not

[jschild]

They all are fun, nintendo just is more limited in variety, while still having some quality.

Again, most Wii games are horrible sellers, but they also have more games that ALL Wii owners have (IE, Wii Fit, Smash Bros, Mario Kart).

[Aldin]

It's interesting to note that Nintendo stole a march on Sony and Microsoft by figuring out that the next step wasn't more powerful processors, but different gaming experiences. The 360 and PS3 both tried to be more robust versions of their predecessors while the Wii branched out into more interactive experiences. Now both Sony and Microsoft have announced initiatives for interactive experience controls.

~Aldin, stream of consciously

[jschild]

Yes, but Xbox is doing it the right way (don't know much about the PS3).

Nintendo's controller is simply horrible for many of it's games and offers little to the experience. In some games, it's absolutely fantastic. However, it is plainly clear that it is isn't the end all and be all of controllers.

Heck, my nephew loves Smash Bros, but he won't play it without his gamecube controller plugged in, because of how clunky the wii mote is for it. Holding that little bugger sideways for some games is just a wonderful example of how not to do ergonomics. Natal and Sony's wand will NOT be used in every game, which is a wonderful thing.

Nintendo has some good lessons, but lets not ignore the vast volume of shovelware that has came with it.

[jackryan4]

PS3 all the way. Then MAYBE the x-box 360. The Wii is crap, except for a few games.

[tech boy]

I love to plug in my game cube controller whenever I can because the wii remote doesn't have the feel like your actually sitting down and playing games.

[jbbnbsmith]

the wii remote doesn't have the feel like your actually sitting down and playing games.
Precisely why I prefer the Wii; I'm standing up and it feels like I'm actually doing the activity. To each his own.

[PlasmaScaper 2.0]

I have the Wii and 360, and, I have to say, although Brawl is a blast, everything else is virtually crap. Being a huge FPS and action-RPG fan, I love Halo 3, Gears, Left 4 Dead, and Fable II (never was able to get into Oblivion, as my TV is older than I am, so I sadly cannot witness the stunning graphics, and I didn't like the combat). I also love Rock Band, which was only released decently on the 360 and Wii, and when the sequel came out, there was no reason to get it for the Wii and every reason to get it for the 360.

Also, in regards to a remark someone made earlier about Nintendo "milking" the Wii, they aren't. Milking is what Activision is doing to the Guitar Hero series (seriously, 5 freakin' nearly-identical Guitar Hero games in a year)

[jbbnbsmith]

PS3 all the way. Then MAYBE the x-box 360. The Wii is crap, except for a few games.
Wii all the way. Then MAYBE X-Box 360. The PS3 is crap, except for a few games.

Please note that I do not really think this, but I wanted to demonstrate how pointless such a post is. So you don't personally like the Wii; no problem. But to presume that your opinion is the only valid one by stating that the "Wii is crap", despite the huge number of people around the world who share a different opinion, is arrogant, condescending, and absurd.

[Aldin]

Yes, but Xbox is doing it the right way.

Mebbe. Guess we'll have to wait and see ;)

~Aldin, Nintendo fanboi since 1987

[jschild]

I mean that in the sense that they are offering the gamer a real choice, instead of forcing a motion controller into a game that might not need it. That's why the play experience varies so much on the Wii, some games scream for motion controls and others do not, and those that don't, suffer.

EDIT: I want to make clear I am not saying that Xbox will do motion control better than Nintendo, just that having real choice in control options, plus games being tailor made to one or the other type of controller is a better overall way than trying to shoe-horn motion controls into every single game.

[Warlord Alpha]

Xbox 360, if that is what you are looking for. Wii is totally after a different audience. PS3 is the same audience as 360 but does it so much worse.

Wii wouldnt be doing so well if it wasn't for the fact that half their audience is people who don't realise that their "wonderful" console is a piece of &!@$. They are first timers, the "casual" audience, as some like to say. Whether that is an accurate label or not is an entirely different debate and one which I shall not get into, but the item remains that the motion sensing remote (I refuse to call it a controller, because it is something MUCH MUCH worse) is a gimmick at best and, while it has done some good things, is being applied to genres and such that nobody should have even bothered to apply it to. Do you know how hard it is to play a shooter on that after you have used a controller? It is absolutely ridiculous. While I admit that the Wii Sports is fun, it is probably the only good thing the wii remote has done for video games. Almost everything else would be better served by a controller. And don't even get me started on the ergonomics of the remote. Its just plain painful to hold. Plus the hardware is nothing compared to the 360. I would love to show those Wii-Worshippers (who mostly have no experience with other consoles) the graphics and power of a 360 or PS3. Man their reaction would be great.

Of course, the 360 isn't perfect either, but it certainly is a lot better than the PS3. First, look at the titles. For every major hit on the PS3 there is about 5 (of the same or higher quality, might I add) for the 360. Look at LIVE. Yeah, you pay $5 (if you buy a prepaid card from amazon, $3) a month, big deal. Look at Home, for free. You get what you pay for.

Its hard to compare the two because of the radically different audiences, but seriously, take a step back and look at them as a way to persue your hobby, playing videogames, and ask yourself, which would you rather use to play Halo or Gears of War or Madden NFL or whatever you play? For me, its a VERY obvious choice - Xbox360.

[Aldin]

jschild,

I guess I just haven't been playing the games that the motion controller makes unpleasant. Frankly, I enjoy how comfortable the seperated controllers feel versus hunching over a traditional controller.

~Aldin, ergonomically

[Warlord Alpha]

jschild,

I guess I just haven't been playing the games that the motion controller makes unpleasant. Frankly, I enjoy how comfortable the seperated controllers feel versus hunching over a traditional controller.

~Aldin, ergonomically

What games have you tried? I might be able to point some out to you that you haven't played, or should play a controller with to see the difference.

[Aldin]

Warlord Alpha,

My current games are:

Zelda
Wii Active
Wii Sport
Super Smash Bros Brawl

Sometime this year I'll probably pick up Metroid and Mario.

~Aldin, one of those fools who underestimated power of the Farce

[Wytefang]

I'll take PC by a mile, then my Xbox 360. :) Though I've had fun on all systems, to some extent. I prefer the FAR cheaper games, better variety, and more options and gamer control that my PC gaming affords me.

[Warlord Alpha]

Warlord Alpha,

My current games are:

Zelda
Wii Active
Wii Sport
Super Smash Bros Brawl

Sometime this year I'll probably pick up Metroid and Mario.

~Aldin, one of those fools who underestimated power of the Farce

Can't speak for Active and whichever Mario title (there are what, 20,000 now?) you have/plan to have, but Zelda on the remote I didn't like and SSBB on the remote I didn't like, but as soon as I picked up the controller to play SSBB I was just thinking to myself "wow, Nintendo, the remote should never be the end-all-be-all."

I demo'ed Metroid in some store and I was just shocked. The wii-mote killed the whole shooter experience. It really did. It was just sad. I remember having so much fun with Prime 2 Echoes on the GCube, amazing game, and if only Prime 3 could be ported to a console that understands controllers work better for some things.

Maybe Metroid works with an old GCube controller though? I'm not sure. I really hope so.


edit: and Wyte is right. PC is superior to all of them, for different reasons of course.

[Aldin]

Shooter?
:unsure:
I think you got the wrong guy, hoss.

~Aldin, with fingers too slow to twitch

[Agent Minivann]

I want a Dreamcast 2.

[Rew]

But where is the huge innovation that the Wii has? For every good game (and there are some really good ones) there are 20 that totally blow on it.

Yes the Wii has Wii Fit and Wii Active. Which is great if I need to exercise. Boom Blox is great. But I want meat on my games and the Wii is 90% mini-game candy. 95% of it's games would be better using a regular controller.

It's not a problem of pretty but dumb for the other 2 consoles, though both of them have games that suffer from that. The Wii has far more ugly but dumb games than the other two. It has its place in the spectrum, but let's not overstate how "innovative" the Wii is. It's got more trash than both the other two consoles combined because no one want's to make these "innovative" games.

Wii "could" be the king of innovation, but I haven't seen anyone step up for that title for real on it.

Where are the sport games outside of Golf? (which it does awesome at).

Where are the great racing games (outside of Mario Cart?)

Where are the great RPGs?

Where are the great FPS's?

It excels at minigames, golf, and some platformers, and 90% of the good games it has, would be just as good, or better, with a regular controller.

This is not Nintendo's fault - it is the game makers, but no matter how amazing or innovative the hardware is, if no one uses it, it's just a white brick.

EDIT: What games (and I mean multiple games here) make the Wii unique as a system?(Because of their simularity, I consider the Xbox and PS3 virtually the same, except that the Xbox is far easier to develop for).

As stated before Nintendo will not compete heavily in this space. They will be king of casual games. Tweens, youngsters, and soccer moms rejoice! (an aside: Interestingly enough, some of the highest rated PS3 games right now are, gasp, casual games purchased form their online store. Also, don't even look at the iPhone offerings. What we call hardcore gammers/games are going to be the minority soon, if not already.)

Nintendo is not going to bring you a high gloss visceral hardcore explosion laden video game experience. On the Wii they are going to bring you something with cartoon appeal, charm, and things you will not expect. Crap? It's all about personal taste and choice. Quite wonderful that we have 3 such great consoles to choose from.

You can criticize Nintendo as being not as inventive or deserving of the hype the Wii gets but really the other platforms are mostly offering the same tried and true console game experience. That's not a bad thing. It's quite successful. But you can see the other two companies taking their queues of where to innovate from the little Wii. E3 releases showcase this well, and any new interface or controller the 360 or PS3 release will be fraught with the same perils as the wiimote.

So the Wii is innovative in hardware, yes, but also innovative in their market and focus. This is leading to games that, while you may think are mostly garbage, just aren't offered by the other two consoles.

If innovation is a sticking point how about the Wii being far more unique than the other two consoles. I'm sure we can agree on that. :)

[jbbnbsmith]

I've played various video game systems since the days of pong, so please don't call me a "first time gamer." Have some developers tried to shove the Wii-mote sensing into games where it doesn't fit well? Yes. Do some games do a terrible job of tracking the Wii-mote? Yes. Does the Wii-mote & nunchuck combo take some getting used to? Yes. But so did more modern controllers after years of the Atari joy stick and single fire button.

Does the Wii have inferior graphics? Yes, but graphics do not make the game.

Is Tiger Woods PGA 10 for the Wii the best golf game ever? I think so, and I've played many. Is Grand Slam Tennis for the Wii the best tennis game ever? I think so. The motion plus has just begun, and will continue, to provide for amazing game play. Swords, bows, and guns are going to be amazing in future releases.

I have no doubt that there are many gamers for whom the Wii would be a bad choice (very few mature games, not as good graphics, different controller, limited choices of titles, etc), so don't buy it. But I have to laugh at the arrogance of comments like "the Wii is crap" and "most people who own a Wii don't realize it is &!@$."

I play the other systems from time to time, but I'd rather swing a club or racket, stand on a balance board while skiing or skating, or aim a gun while shooting than simply flick tiny joysticks and press little buttons (hypocritical arrogance intentional). And I can't imagine how a standard controller could ever be a satisfactory substitute for the Wii-mote in games like Boom Blox or World of Goo.

I guess I just don't understand why the "serious" gamers get so upset that we "casual gamers" actually enjoy the Wii. :headshake:
</IMG>

[Eclipse]

I guess I just don't understand why the "serious" gamers get so upset that we "casual gamers" actually enjoy the Wii. :headshake:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[nyys]

Wii wouldnt be doing so well if it wasn't for the fact that half their audience is people who don't realise that their "wonderful" console is a piece of &!@$. <snip>

Added by nyys,
A whole bunch more garbage about how my opinion doesn't count and I'm an idiot for liking what I like.

You're entitle to your opinion WA, but don't basically call me a fool becasue I prefer the Wii. Could you be more arrogant?

I love the Wii. I prefer the Mario/Cartoony games. I think the Wii-mote and nunchuck is great. My opinions... they are not wrong.

[Lord Pyre]

Can't speak for Active and whichever Mario title (there are what, 20,000 now?) you have/plan to have, but Zelda on the remote I didn't like and SSBB on the remote I didn't like, but as soon as I picked up the controller to play SSBB I was just thinking to myself "wow, Nintendo, the remote should never be the end-all-be-all."

Well, your facts are only opinions, so it really doesn't count... I loved Twilight Princess, and though the Wii controls weren't exactly amazing, they didn't detract from the game. They at least made shooting the bow a lot easier. I play SSBB on the GameCube controller because that's what I'm used to. Most of my friends use the Wii+Nunchuck, though.

I demo'ed Metroid in some store and I was just shocked. The wii-mote killed the whole shooter experience. It really did. It was just sad. I remember having so much fun with Prime 2 Echoes on the GCube, amazing game, and if only Prime 3 could be ported to a console that understands controllers work better for some things.

I've got Metroid 3, and in my opinion, it has some of the best shooter controls I've ever played. Pointing at the screen is so much easier than manipulating a joystick in a shooter. That's why PC shooters are better (In my opinion).

I've never touched an Xbox before until a few months ago, where I played some Halo 3 multiplayer. And I absolutely hated how it felt. (Not because I was being squashed, because I really wasn't doing too bad for a first time). The controls were jerky, pushing the joystick in to zoom with the sniper rifle made it ridiculously hard to aim, and it just felt horrible. I play Medal of Honor games on the GameCube, and those were much better controlled.



...I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, just showing that these are all just opinions. I bought the Wii because I play Nintendo games. Zelda, Fire Emblem, and Smash Bros. are some of my favorite games. The Xbox and PlayStation don't have those. Why should I buy them if they have no games I like?

(I want to play Heavy Rain on the PS, but that's about it. :p)

[jschild]

jschild,

I guess I just haven't been playing the games that the motion controller makes unpleasant. Frankly, I enjoy how comfortable the seperated controllers feel versus hunching over a traditional controller.

~Aldin, ergonomically

Boom Blox, amazing use.

Metriod - Good use

de Blob, ok use.

Punch Out, horrible use

Any game in which you are forced to use imprecise motion controls (any where you just jerk it around, which is what the majority of the games require) instead of any form of precision is where I get tired of it and would just prefer a simple controller.

EDIT: Basically, any time I am forced to use motion controls when a simple button press would be simpler or more precise is a failure of the game. The motion controls should be an enhancement of the gaming experience, not a gimmick. Very few Wii third party titles understand this concept, however.

First party titles however, use this to good effect.

[Warlord Alpha]

I'm multi-quoting a bunch of posts here. So I dont write a post thats ridiculously long I won't include much in the quotes and as such may be responding to something I didn't include. Just so you know.

Shooter?
:unsure:


Yeah, Metroid Prime 3 is a first-person shooter.

But where is the huge innovation that the Wii has? For every good game (and there are some really good ones) there are 20 that totally blow on it.

But I want meat on my games and the Wii is 90% mini-game candy. 95% of it's games would be better using a regular controller.

Wii "could" be the king of innovation, but I haven't seen anyone step up for that title for real on it.

Where are the sport games outside of Golf? (which it does awesome at).

Where are the great racing games (outside of Mario Cart?)

Where are the great RPGs?

Where are the great FPS's?

It excels at minigames, golf, and some platformers, and 90% of the good games it has, would be just as good, or better, with a regular controller.

This is not Nintendo's fault - it is the game makers, but no matter how amazing or innovative the hardware is, if no one uses it, it's just a white brick.

EDIT: What games (and I mean multiple games here) make the Wii unique as a system?(Because of their simularity, I consider the Xbox and PS3 virtually the same, except that the Xbox is far easier to develop for).


...I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, just showing that these are all just opinions. I bought the Wii because I play Nintendo games. Zelda, Fire Emblem, and Smash Bros. are some of my favorite games. The Xbox and PlayStation don't have those. Why should I buy them if they have no games I like?


Exactly 100% the way I feel. At the end of the day, you are playing games either way. If those games are terrible or don't use the right hardware, why are you bothering?


So the Wii is innovative in hardware, yes, but also innovative in their market and focus. This is leading to games that, while you may think are mostly garbage, just aren't offered by the other two consoles.

If innovation is a sticking point how about the Wii being far more unique than the other two consoles. I'm sure we can agree on that. :)

But does innovation make it a better console? Will innovation make my gaming experience better?


I have no doubt that there are many gamers for whom the Wii would be a bad choice (very few mature games, not as good graphics, different controller, limited choices of titles, etc), so don't buy it. But I have to laugh at the arrogance of comments like "the Wii is crap" and "most people who own a Wii don't realize it is &!@$."


I guess I just don't understand why the "serious" gamers get so upset that we "casual gamers" actually enjoy the Wii. :headshake:
</IMG>

Well then apparently we are both making comments from a point of view neither of us see from ;)

Wii wouldnt be doing so well if it wasn't for the fact that half their audience is people who don't realise that their "wonderful" console is a piece of &!@$. <snip>


You're entitle to your opinion WA, but don't basically call me a fool becasue I prefer the Wii. Could you be more arrogant?

I love the Wii. I prefer the Mario/Cartoony games. I think the Wii-mote and nunchuck is great. My opinions... they are not wrong.

I said half. Why did I say half? Because a LOT of people playing the Wii have never played another video game in their entire life.

This is really pretty sad. I don't see why you think I feel that my personal opinions are fact, or rather that I think your opinions are wrong. In my opinion, a lot of people with Wiis don't know about consoles and so when they go parading around that the Wii is the best or whatever, they aren't getting a clear picture. To put something behind this, I have a friend who got a Wii for christmas a couple years back. Absolutely loved it, thought it was really cool, told people how awesome it was, etc. A couple months later, he bought an xbox 360. He never talked about the Wii again. Told people how the 360 was better than the Wii, etc.

I don't say things for no reason and I am not being arrogant. Those people that rarely or have never played video games don't know any better, so of course they are going to champion the Wii. In a way its like me being biased against the motion remote. Yes, I have used a controller or WSAD my whole life, so I have a rough time using the wiimote, but at least I have gone out and tried it. And, if nothing else, I am an informed gamer who knows at least basic information about the industry and the games and the consoles.

Don't hide behind insulting me because you don't feel like looking deep enough into my words. You take them at face value as a guy bad-mouthing the Wii because he is arrogant and doesn't know what he is talking about.

Can't speak for Active and whichever Mario title (there are what, 20,000 now?) you have/plan to have, but Zelda on the remote I didn't like and SSBB on the remote I didn't like, but as soon as I picked up the controller to play SSBB I was just thinking to myself "wow, Nintendo, the remote should never be the end-all-be-all."

Well, your facts are only opinions, so it really doesn't count... I loved Twilight Princess, and though the Wii controls weren't exactly amazing, they didn't detract from the game. They at least made shooting the bow a lot easier. I play SSBB on the GameCube controller because that's what I'm used to. Most of my friends use the Wii+Nunchuck, though.

Really? My "facts" are only opinions? I never said they were facts, obviously they are my opinions...



I demo'ed Metroid in some store and I was just shocked. The wii-mote killed the whole shooter experience. It really did. It was just sad. I remember having so much fun with Prime 2 Echoes on the GCube, amazing game, and if only Prime 3 could be ported to a console that understands controllers work better for some things.

I've got Metroid 3, and in my opinion, it has some of the best shooter controls I've ever played. Pointing at the screen is so much easier than manipulating a joystick in a shooter. That's why PC shooters are better (In my opinion).

I've never touched an Xbox before until a few months ago, where I played some Halo 3 multiplayer. And I absolutely hated how it felt. (Not because I was being squashed, because I really wasn't doing too bad for a first time). The controls were jerky, pushing the joystick in to zoom with the sniper rifle made it ridiculously hard to aim, and it just felt horrible. I play Medal of Honor games on the GameCube, and those were much better controlled.


Well, we are in the same boat. Although the jerkiness is interesting. Are you sure the person's xbox you were playing on didnt have the sensitivity turned way too high? Playing on a low sensitivity makes it much easier to aim.

______________________________________________________

All right, let me say a few things before you people further attack me for the comment I made.

First, I never singled any of you out. I never said "all Wii owners are biased towards their consoles," I never said ANYTHING even remotely like "Wii owners are idiots."

Second, I do not own a Wii, but that DOES NOT MEAN I have never played on one. Two of my neighbors own them and I have played on them before. I do own an xbox360 and play it for hours a day. I am not a "casual gamer," which may/may not shed light on my response to the post by jbbnbsmith.

Next, and its sad I have to remind some of you, all of this I have presented here is my opinion and I understand that it is NOT FACT. Ok? Happy? Now stop making me look like an ^%@hole because you think I hold my opinions above all of yours.

And last, the consoles are completely different and appeal to completely different audiences. I also understand that. You don't have to remind me, I understand that. If you like the feel of the Wii or the different style, that is fine, I'm not forcing the PS3 and Xbox360 down your throat.

All right?

_______________________________________________

[Wytefang]

The controller issues (jerky movement, imprecise aiming, inability to pull off 180 turn-and-shoot movements, etc...) is why I cannot, for the life of me, ever understand how ANY FPS sells on a console.

For my money, nothing beats a good keyboard/mouse combo for FPS control (and several small experiments seem to bear this out as well, notably the famous PC Gamer/Xbox Magazine shoot-out).

But I do love me some Platforming, Racing, and Fighting games on consoles. Each one has its strengths but I've found that (overall) the PC surpasses them in a variety of ways that make it hard for me to ever really completely fall in love with console-gaming. That being said, I think a great solution is just to eventually own all the systems and play the best games on each system.

That's what I'm doing for now with my 360 and PC. On 360 I've beaten Crackdown (a simply amazing game!!!) and I'm also done with Too Human (another somewhat under-rated game, imho)...and I've had a blast recently with Winning 11 Soccer and Guitar Hero 3. However, I've also had nearly as much fun playing Left 4 Dead on my PC as any of the console games so I'm glad I own both systems. :D

[jschild]

It's not as hard as you think, I used to have major problems, but playing 20+ hours of Mass Effect, you get used to it easily after a bit.

Edit - this is a perfect example of how Wii third party (as i've stated before, first party games usually work awesome with the controller) mess up the controls just because they can "use" motion controls.

http://kotaku.com/5312030/one-weird-wii-control-scheme

[jbbnbsmith]

I have no doubt that there are many gamers for whom the Wii would be a bad choice (very few mature games, not as good graphics, different controller, limited choices of titles, etc), so don't buy it. But I have to laugh at the arrogance of comments like "the Wii is crap" and "most people who own a Wii don't realize it is &!@$."


I guess I just don't understand why the "serious" gamers get so upset that we "casual gamers" actually enjoy the Wii. :headshake:
</IMG>

Well then apparently we are both making comments from a point of view neither of us see from ;)

I have no idea what that means.

Wii wouldnt be doing so well if it wasn't for the fact that half their audience is people who don't realise that their "wonderful" console is a piece of &!@$. <snip>


You're entitle to your opinion WA, but don't basically call me a fool becasue I prefer the Wii. Could you be more arrogant?

I love the Wii. I prefer the Mario/Cartoony games. I think the Wii-mote and nunchuck is great. My opinions... they are not wrong.

I said half. Why did I say half? Because a LOT of people playing the Wii have never played another video game in their entire life.
So the other half of people who own a Wii do know that the Wii is a piece of &!@$ ???

To put something behind this, I have a friend who got a Wii for christmas a couple years back. Absolutely loved it, thought it was really cool, told people how awesome it was, etc. A couple months later, he bought an xbox 360. He never talked about the Wii again. Told people how the 360 was better than the Wii, etc. Forgive me if that story does not convince me of anything other than your friend prefers Xbox over Wii. Obviously there are many who do, just look at the poll in this thread.

I don't say things for no reason and I am not being arrogant. Those people that rarely or have never played video games don't know any better, so of course they are going to champion the Wii. That not only sounded arrogant, it also sounded quite pompous.
Don't hide behind insulting me because you don't feel like looking deep enough into my words. You take them at face value as a guy bad-mouthing the Wii because he is arrogant and doesn't know what he is talking about.
You don't like the Wii. We get it. No one said you have to like the Wii. Neither is anyone saying anything bad about your console of preference. The problem here, and I honestly cannot believe that you still don't understand this, is that you are telling adults who have more years of video gaming under their belts than they care to admit, that the console they find enjoyable is no good at all, and that if we were as smart as you we would agree. Can you not see how that would be perceived as arrogant?
All right, let me say a few things before you people further attack me for the comment I made.

First, I never singled any of you out. I never said "all Wii owners are biased towards their consoles," I never said ANYTHING even remotely like "Wii owners are idiots."
Umm...that is pretty much exactly what you have been saying.

Second, I do not own a Wii, but that DOES NOT MEAN I have never played on one. Two of my neighbors own them and I have played on them before. I do own an xbox360 and play it for hours a day. I am not a "casual gamer," which may/may not shed light on my response to the post by jbbnbsmith.
Nope, I still have no idea what that sentence means.

Next, and its sad I have to remind some of you, all of this I have presented here is my opinion and I understand that it is NOT FACT. Ok? Happy? Now stop making me look like an ^%@hole because you think I hold my opinions above all of yours. No one can make another person look like an @$$hole, nor was anyone trying to do so. We were, however, simply trying to tell you that to some of us you were being perceived as such.

And last, the consoles are completely different and appeal to completely different audiences. I also understand that. You don't have to remind me, I understand that. If you like the feel of the Wii or the different style, that is fine, I'm not forcing the PS3 and Xbox360 down your throat.
This is the exact point that most have been trying to make in this discussion. People chose a console based upon their personal preferences, not simply based upon technical specifications. At last we agree.


</IMG></IMG>

[Ted_Danson]

Nintendo makes me sad. They hold some of the greatest first party licenses, and they make those games well, but those games are few and far between.

Some of my all time favorite games have been on nintendo systems. That being said, Nintendo has always been into the "next" gimmick, and not focusing on all of the things that they've already done well.

The Wii is their first big win since Super Nintendo on a home console. If you look at the 64, Gamecube, and Wii, they all have "gimmicky" controllers, trying to be different than the rest. That kills it for me. I'm a tried and true kind of person, tweaking things here and there, slight changes, these things work better in the long run.

Right now the Wii is a fad. Yes, people like it. Yes, some of those people are "gamers". Because it is doing well doesn't mean it's not a fad. That is why people who don't play video games are out there buying them.

I own a PS3 and a 360. I do not like PS3. I like the Blu-Ray, the games and controller aren't so great.

360 is where it is at for me, I play it every day, and I don't have to jump around in my living room to enjoy my games.

The last thing I want to do after working and taking care of my kids all day is stand in front of my TV and swing my arms around. If the Wii offered an alternate controller, I might pick it up, but they never will.

Tim Burke-a gamer who still owns his original intellivision

[Wytefang]

It's not as hard as you think, I used to have major problems, but playing 20+ hours of Mass Effect, you get used to it easily after a bit.

The issue for me is that it's not about "getting used to" an inferior control scheme. I can say inferior because it's simply not as precise nor does it allow you to do everything that the K/B config on PC allows for (thus the use of things like Auto-Aim in many console FPS titles).

So I'm being asked to accept playing a game with lesser-quality controls than I should be able to, which is why I just don't even bother with shooters on consoles. They almost seem to be oxymoronic (my own word, LOL) after a fashion because you're barely shooting like you do in other games.

I will say that I almost liked the Wii's FPS scheme for Metroid Prime Corruption (I believe it was), made possible by their innovative controller.

Sidenote - when people are arguing over systems and find that they feel the other person is being a know-it-all or whatever, frequently the issue is simply that you're arguing to and from different perspectives and motives. For example, one person may be making the claim that from a factual, technical standpoint, a particular system is genuinely more technically proficient and/or powerful than another and from their perspective, that power is super important. Thus they may feel that their stance on the matter is very fair and very accurate. However, someone else may only care that they get to play specific, particular exclusive games on their system that can't be played elsewhere.

The key is simply to make sure that you're agreeing ahead of time on what the main issues are and what facts you both can agree are, indeed, "facts." That way you can spend less time griping at each other about being potentially arrogant.

[jbbnbsmith]

Sidenote - when people are arguing over systems and find that they feel the other person is being a know-it-all or whatever, frequently the issue is simply that you're arguing to and from different perspectives and motives. For example, one person may be making the claim that from a factual, technical standpoint, a particular system is genuinely more technically proficient and/or powerful than another and from their perspective, that power is super important. Thus they may feel that their stance on the matter is very fair and very accurate. However, someone else may only care that they get to play specific, particular exclusive games on their system that can't be played elsewhere.

No doubt, and for the most part that is exactly how this thread has been going. The problem I had was not with someone not liking a game system, or simply saying that one system had better technical specs than another, but with the gratuitous assertions that a particular game system was crap and that the people who own the system, or at least half of them, didn't it was $%!#.

But I think/hope we have put that all behind us now. The fact remains that debating Wii vs 360 vs PS3 is sort of like debating vanilla vs chocolate vs strawberry in that a significant part is simply personal preference rather than inherent value.


At any rate, I've said more than enough on the matter. Happy gaming to all!

[Agent Minivann]

I think an interesting question that may be difficult to get an answer to is how many of the atypical gamers that Nintendo hoped to snare have either bought a Wii or regularly play their Wii. I think that was their main motive in the design of the Wii. I think that is the real indicator of the Wii's success. If they bought one and play it regularly, then the console has succeeded.

And the course of discussion brought this to mind. Language warning (an asterisk substitutes for a letter of a "bad word"):
http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/100/1002471p1.html

[Wytefang]

It's hard to know the answer to your question, Agent Minivan. If anecdotal and/or 2nd-hand evidence is valid at all, it seems that people buy the system, have fun for a short time and then it sits gathering dust. For genuine gamers the reason seems to be the poor 3rd-party support and lack of technical oomph with the system. For non-gamers or atypical gamers, the reason seems to be that, well, the novelty wears off.

Sadly, either way, it seems like the system that you play a lot for a few months and that's it. In that regard, I'd call it the disposable console, if you will.

I found it to be a LOT of fun - my only gripe was a lack of quality AAA titles that were NOT Nintendo (surprisingly, I don't much enjoy their games most of the time - too kiddy, too simplistic, too repetitive). I am hoping to repurchase one eventually, though.

[Lord Pyre]

(surprisingly, I don't much enjoy their games most of the time - too kiddy,

Well, it seems the new Zelda game coming out is going to be "more mature than ever." Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I'd like a darker Zelda game, but I do see why they haven't in the past. A common game that kids play all of a sudden getting really dark? There might be angry parents.

[Dignan]

The issue for me is that it's not about "getting used to" an inferior control scheme. I can say inferior because it's simply not as precise nor does it allow you to do everything that the K/B config on PC allows for (thus the use of things like Auto-Aim in many console FPS titles).

So I'm being asked to accept playing a game with lesser-quality controls than I should be able to, which is why I just don't even bother with shooters on consoles. They almost seem to be oxymoronic (my own word, LOL) after a fashion because you're barely shooting like you do in other games.



Yeah, there are a score of FPS games on the consoles that I own that have terrible controls and really impair any gamers ability to play the game. I played PC FPS nearly exclusively for years. I still think that PC FPS still has a "superior" control scheme, but I've been playing this gen's FPSs so much, I really don't notice the controls holding me back. After awhile, you don't feel like you're playing with "inferior" controls. I think that the PC controls are still "better" for FPSs than consoles, but I think that the gap has really shortened with this gen's games.

That said, I greatly perfer console controls to the PC for almost every other genre of game. The PC control setup is really only better for FPS, MMORPGs, and strategy games. For fighting, action, racing, sports, etc, I perfer to have a handheld controller. I know that PCs have controllers you can buy, but I've simply never been a fan of those. I think they are poorly implemented and never quite work right for a PC game. Inevitably, there is always some important key that can't be mapped to the controller.

Anyway, the reason I finally jumped from my PC gaming to the consoles has the hassle and cost of keeping my PC up to date with the latest games. It's a lot easier to simply buy a console for the cost of a graphics card and be done with it. Knowing your system will run the game properly, knowing that servers are taken care of, patches are automatically applied, and all your friends have the same voice communication software, etc. saves a ton of hassle.

I'm not trying to say that console gaming is better than PC. I'm a long time PC gamer and love a ton of old PC games. At this stage in my life, I like my gaming to be easy and hassle free. Being able to just buy one box and throw in a disk allows me to just enjoy my leasure time without all the upkeep associated with PC gaming.

Of course, the above really only applies to me and people who share my similar opinions and perspective on life. Others probably diagree. :D

[nyys]

Nope. Sorry, you're wrong. ;)

[Charm]

I thought the wii was a great idea and really wanted to get one for my son who tends to spend a lot of time gaming, especially in the winter. I had hoped that it would help the whole family to get more active. And so we purchased a wii for his birthday last June.

For probably six months, the wii was in constant use. The kids (my youngest was 13 and the oldest as 19 at that point) played every day and were very competitive with keeping their mi guy in top shape, etc. And then the novelty wore off. So for Christmas, they got a lot of new wii games. Again, the wii was in constant use. From the time one got up in the morning until the last one dropped at night, the wii was running, though the kids were no longer so active....they'd learned to play it sitting down and just swinging the wiimote. And then the novelty wore off again.

The only wii game that sees any use now is Guitar Hero. I have never understood the fascination with that one, but the kids still play it a couple times a month. And guess what has become the new favorite pasttime? The PS2 that we've had for years! I still don't see any reason to upgrade to the PS3, but, were the PS2 and the wii both to break tomorrow, I'd buy a new PS2 instead of a new wii, guaranteed.

[Wytefang]

Dignan, I think you used to have a stronger point about ease of use but these days consoles are hardly problem-free (red rings of death, bugs, issues waiting for bug patches to be approved by Microsoft or Sony, etc...).

PCs now have STEAM, GameShadow (or other services), and Windows itself - they all do auto-updates these days.

Nearly everything works and you actually get far more choices with your online options and how you wish to play than you do with the closed system of consoles and things like Xbox Live (and for the PC you get the same functionality but it's free).

The other thing I wanted to mention is that costs are no longer even remotely in console gaming's favor anymore. Factor in HDTV, paying for online services (ala Xbox Live), the overly expensive console games ($59.99?? - over time that really adds up), extra controllers, batteries or battery chargers, etc.... With PC components and manufacturer-built systems at an all-time incredible low, I can build a killer PC gaming rig for easily the same price as a mid-range Xbox 360 system or a low-range PS3.

BUT we're not really arguing over that and this thread isn't about that, really. I'm just pointing out that some of the reasons people give for playing console games have really gone down the drain in recent years.

I prefer the K/B controls for FPS, RTS, MMO, and RPGs (far easily to select whatever buttons you need to select, imho). For racing, platformers, and fighting games, I'd agree...a controller is best. :)

[Dignan]

Dignan, I think you used to have a stronger point about ease of use but these days consoles are hardly problem-free (red rings of death, bugs, issues waiting for bug patches to be approved by Microsoft or Sony, etc...).

Consoles do have more problems today, but the manufactuers pay to fix them for you. That's not the same with PCs. When an Xbox goes RROD, MS pays to have it shipped to them, fix it for free, ship it back, and give you a free month of Xbox live. I haven't run into a PC company that does that and I've had much greater problems with PCs than my consoles.


Nearly everything works and you actually get far more choices with your online options and how you wish to play than you do with the closed system of consoles and things like Xbox Live (and for the PC you get the same functionality but it's free).

Well, on the PC, you can piecemeal a bunch of Xbox Live's features together, but it's no where near as seemless, nor does it work nearly as well. Keep in mind, I still PC game today, just not as much as I did. The process of tracking friends playing other games, leaving the messages, keeping tabs on what games they've been playing lately, when they were last online, etc, is a bit more of a hassle on the PC. Whereas Xbox Live does it automatically and seamlessly.

Plus, on same PC games, you get less functionallity and a much heaftier pricetag (ie MMORPGs).


The other thing I wanted to mention is that costs are no longer even remotely in console gaming's favor anymore. Factor in HDTV, paying for online services (ala Xbox Live), the overly expensive console games ($59.99?? - over time that really adds up), extra controllers, batteries or battery chargers, etc.... With PC components and manufacturer-built systems at an all-time incredible low, I can build a killer PC gaming rig for easily the same price as a mid-range Xbox 360 system or a low-range PS3.

Not sure why you put an HDTV under the cost of the console? Do you only use the TV for gaming? I already have several HDTVs for movie and TV watching, I didn't have to buy a new one for gaming. I've always found console games to be right in the same ballpark as PC games (as far as price is concerned). With the proliferation of the used console game market and excellent selection of arcade titles, the cost of enjoyment is very low. There are very few games on the PC for $10 or $15 bucks that I want to play, but there is a rather long list on my wishlist of Xbox Live Arcade games that I want.

As far as building a killer PC to handle all the latest PC games for $250 bucks, I've never seen anyone ever come close to this. Nearly all my friends build their own PCs and we've never put a new rig together for anywhere near this range. We've put together some "light" rigs for $600 or so, but I don't recall any of my buds putting together a $250 rig to game on. It appears that you are getting much sweeter deals than all my friends in various parts of the United States.


BUT we're not really arguing over that and this thread isn't about that, really. I'm just pointing out that some of the reasons people give for playing console games have really gone down the drain in recent years.

Well, that's not the opinion that I hold based on my experiences with PC gaming. If you don't think my opinion is valid, that's fine. It only matters if I think my opinion is valid (which it is to me, of course :D ). For my life, console gaming offers the best utilization of my free time.

Anyway, our lives have lead is to our preferred gaming haven. I'm glad you've found enjoyment in your leisure time.

Man, I really de-railed this thread by getting into a tangent with 'fang. Sorry all.

Back on topic, play all the consoles at a friends house and pick the one you like best.

[Wytefang]

I'm sorry Dignan and to the thread's original topic discussion but I simpy can't resist answering a few questions and responding to a few thoughts posed by Dignan (bear in mind this isn't being done in an attacking fashion but several things you've said are - at this point - urban gaming legends and I think it's only fair to the PC as a platform, to firmly refute them.)

Consoles do have more problems today, but the manufactuers pay to fix them for you. That's not the same with PCs. When an Xbox goes RROD, MS pays to have it shipped to them, fix it for free, ship it back, and give you a free month of Xbox live. I haven't run into a PC company that does that and I've had much greater problems with PCs than my consoles.

Almost ALL reputable PC manufacturers, Dell, Gateway, all the big names that most mass-market PC gamers might buy from certainly DO provide full warranties, in many if not all cases coming to your door rather than expecting you to mail out your system (talk about a pain in the keister!) and wait several weeks for it to return. Then to give Xbox gamers a whole free month of online service (Xbox Live) that they SHOULD be getting for free is hardly a fair recompense. Most reputable PC parts stores, such as online vendor NewEgg offer exceptional refunds and exchanges for PC parts, to cater to those who build their own systems. EVGA, for example, has an amazingly thorough and easy-to-use warranty system.

Well, on the PC, you can piecemeal a bunch of Xbox Live's features together, but it's no where near as seemless, nor does it work nearly as well. Keep in mind, I still PC game today, just not as much as I did. The process of tracking friends playing other games, leaving the messages, keeping tabs on what games they've been playing lately, when they were last online, etc, is a bit more of a hassle on the PC. Whereas Xbox Live does it automatically and seamlessly.

I'll agree in part - all the features on Xbox Live are put together seemlessly (good word choice for this, it's certainly a cohesive collection of features) - but the real issue is that MicroSoft has sold console gamers, well I should say specifically Xbox gamers on the idea that they need or should want all the aspects of the Live features when the reality is that I've barely found anything that I really care all that much about. I have plenty of 360 gamer friends who gripe about how dumb and/or worthless things like achievements are. Or how useless chatting is when you're selecting letters one at a time on a clunky screen via gamepad. If you consider that you can use voice-chat rather than the clunky chat feature, then you're stuck dealing with and listening to the hordes of foul-mouthed 14-year olds and the notoriously gawd-awful community when it comes to MP games. :( Thankfully you can mute people in most games.

Even worse, though, is that surveys from about 1-2 years ago have shown that more people don't care and/or don't even use Xbox Live compared to the people who own 360s than DO use it. In that regard, Microsoft has pulled the same trick (only in reverse) that many attribute to the devil in religion (e.g., "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist"). In MS's case, they convinced console gamers that they somehow desperately needed the online features they offer. It's nice to have match-making but I've constantly heard people griping about how it's still not evenly used or used well in certain games compared to Halo 3's exceptional online suite of features. So I think the best case is that it's inconsistently present in console games. Even worse is that gamers aren't allowed to surf for specific servers that may have special settings or better ping for them and their friends. These limitations really balance things out between consoles and PC.

Plus, on same PC games, you get less functionallity and a much heaftier pricetag (ie MMORPGs).

I'm not seeing this point at all - different games are going to have different feature sets. MMOs, for example, have their own unique pay-structure (monthly...ugh!) and no need for some sort of Online Service like Xbox Live since they provide all the features necessary for the game's community within the game itself. I'm sorry if I'm missing your point here, Dignan - I wasn't sure what you were getting at here.

Not sure why you put an HDTV under the cost of the console? Do you only use the TV for gaming? I already have several HDTVs for movie and TV watching, I didn't have to buy a new one for gaming.

Ah, but that's the kicker. Console supporters will throw up the whole "consoles are cheaper and they look just about as good as mid-to-high-end PCs." Yes, but to do that requires an HDTV (for high-end resolutions) or else consoles fall woefully short in the graphics and performance deparment (granted a fun game should NOT rely on graphics alone - or at all - but we all appreciate excellent eye-candy, no denying it). If you throw up the claim that "well I use my TV for other stuff, why do I have to include its price in with my console?" The answer is because you can use your computer for even more stuff than a TV is used for and if you're going to use that argument, then I can certainly make a fair point that you'll need to discount the cost of your PC as well, since it's used for other stuff. You can't have it both ways - either you need to include the cost of the HDTV (and in fairness I can include the cost of an LCD monitor with a PC's estimated costs though you can get killer 22" monitors for as low as $150-200 these days so it's hardly a deal-breaker) OR you can claim that the HDTV should NOT count and thus I can discount the cost of a PC, too, since it's used for other things just like your HDTV.

I've always found console games to be right in the same ballpark as PC games (as far as price is concerned). With the proliferation of the used console game market and excellent selection of arcade titles, the cost of enjoyment is very low. There are very few games on the PC for $10 or $15 bucks that I want to play, but there is a rather long list on my wishlist of Xbox Live Arcade games that I want.

Well console games aren't really in the same ballpark as PC games. When Fallout 3 came out, I got it for $49.99. Meanwhile my buddy who picked it up for the 360 paid $10 more for the same game (albeit with slightly less snazzy graphics since I have a beefier PC than his 360). Most gamers are going to get hot AAA titles on release day, not months later just to try and save $10 (thus, ironically, actually making the games EQUAL in cost to the same PC game at launch). So console gamers ARE paying more over the long run, definitely - in a single year, that could add up to an extra $100 if you buy a decent amount of games. Now one saving grace, I'll admit is the ability to trade games in but we all know that's a total rip-off PLUS many folks really like to keep their games. I know I do.

As far as $10-15 games available for PC? Tons of 'em - in fact the PC is the breeding ground for indie, arcade, and free games. A simple Google search will net you tons and tons of great games in that price range and lower. STEAM alone would net you tons of games.

As far as building a killer PC to handle all the latest PC games for $250 bucks, I've never seen anyone ever come close to this. Nearly all my friends build their own PCs and we've never put a new rig together for anywhere near this range. We've put together some "light" rigs for $600 or so, but I don't recall any of my buds putting together a $250 rig to game on. It appears that you are getting much sweeter deals than all my friends in various parts of the United States.

Ah, here's the meat of it. I'll concede that the Wii, at least, God Bless it, is cheaper than a gaming PC. But the 360 or PS3 (particularly the PS3)? No way. In fact, they're far more expensive to own over their initial glory phase (first 3-years of life) than an equivalent PC. I use 3-years because that's pretty much when most people tend to upgrade their PCs these days - now that parts are more powerful than in the past, they tend to remain valid and useful for gaming PCs a bit longer.

Xbox Pro (the standard edition most people will get): $300
Extra Controllers (let's say you get one extra one): $50
Batteries OR Battery Charger for Controller? (We'll be extra fair and say you get a charger, to save $$): $30-50
Xbox Live (for 3-years): $150
Console Game Overcharge (we'll say you buy 6 games a year over 3 years - that's at least $10 more per game x 6 then times 3 years): $180
HDTV - $500 (and that's being incredibly fair)

TOTAL = $710 without HDTV cost - $1210 at least, with it.

If you want to leave out the HDTV, then for my PC build below, I'm going to discount it by 20% as it's used for other things also. PC Build using current parts from NewEgg:

Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80601920 - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202)= $244

GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128375)= $200

CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 ... - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005)- $100

CORSAIR XMS3 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Triple Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TR3X6G1333C9 - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145220)= $100

Western Digital Caviar Black WD5001AALS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - OEM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136320)= $70

EVGA 896-P3-1255-AR GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130434)= $135

TOTAL = $844 but I didn't subtract for the $75 in mail-in rebates, so it's about $770!

And bear in mind this is a VERY high-end system. I can build one that's barely a half-generation behind in capabilities that would only cost about $500-600 tops. I did not include an OS because most people can migrate their current one over to the new system and/or get one on eBay super cheap in need be. I also didn't need to include a case as they're nearly all standard enough to work for today's parts so it's fair to expect that gamers can just recycle their old one. I could've made the same point about the Hard Drive, too, but I included a new one to be more than fair.

And you'll note that price is WITHOUT me giving myself a 20% discount since the PC gets used for a lot of other stuff than just gaming. I went without that discount AND didn't count the cost of a HDTV and still matched up really well with the 360 and I'd match up just as well, if not better, versus the PS3.

So I think I've shown just how much of an "urban gaming legend" it is to claim that the PC is more expensive than a console. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this was long-winded - intense discussions of this nature tend to be this way but hopefully this sidetrack to the original point of the thread (which probably, to be fair, should've included the PC as a more-than-valid gaming option, in its original poll too!) was enlightening to my fellow videogamers in general.

I thank you for your time (those of you who managed to read through the whole thing) and to Dignan for raising some good points. I'll never disagree, entirely, that consoles can't be easier - they definitely can be but with an accompanied lack of better controls for the most popular genres, more expensive games, paid online features, and features that aren't entirely necessary - that facet may not be enough for me to believe that they're necessarily better or superior to a high-end gaming PC.

That being said, these types of discussions, no matter how fact-filled or earnestly discussed, will always come down to someone falling back on the issue of "opinion" and "personal preference", regardless of any potential facts being shown. I can respect that though I don't alway understand it.

Peace.

[jschild]

Except I just got a brand new 32" HDTV for $300.
You didn't include a price for a monitor, yet charged the Console for one.
You forget I can rent tons of games from gamefly and thus play more games and pay less. PC's cannot rent any games at all.
You didn't include any money for a mouse, keyboard, or controller. Yet you charged the Xbox for an extra controller and a recharging station.

I love PC games, but they have their own set of problems and making a VERY biased list proves nothing. You can make a good gaming system for 600-800 however.

[Warlord Alpha]

Wytefang, approximately how often do you have to upgrade a gaming computer? Obviously you can add more RAM sticks or a bigger hard drive as needed, which isn't very expensive to do, but the current console generation is expected to last to as many as 10 years (for reference purposes, the Xbox 360 launch date was November 2005), and as we have seen with the PS2, we've had that console for ages and games are still being made for it! And that is all without ANY upgrades to the system whatsoever, except maybe a bigger hard drive for a couple people, which, for the xbox user, is $100.

I'm curious to see what you need to do, and how much it costs, to keep a gaming computer ready to play the newest games for 10 years.

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

Wytefang, you forgot about the corded controllers. They're less expensive and they can also be easily used on a PC. They're $40 bucks and negate the cost of batteries. I got a used one at Gamestop for $30.

Also, there are assholes in any online game. Just mute them.

[Mr Migraine]

Wytefang, you forgot about the corded controllers. They're less expensive and they can also be easily used on a PC. They're $40 bucks and negate the cost of batteries. I got a used one at Gamestop for $30.

Also, there are assholes in any online game. Just mute them.

Corded controllers are the shiz. With wireless ones you have to buy some $60 thing to recognize it on a PC.

[Wytefang]

JSchild, if you read carefully you'll note that I did NOT include the cost of the HDTV versus my build for the PC. I didn't have to include mouse or keyboard costs because nearly everyone recycles their old ones when they build a new system OR if they buy a pre-built system, those are nearly always a free part of the system. So no bias here, sorry bro. :)

In fact, I seriously disagree that my list is terribly biased, in fact, I was extremely fair to the console when it comes to costs. I will agree, however, that corded controllers help with battery costs.

I'll also agree that it's great to rent games from GameFly (if you don't care about owning your games for further playing, like I do) BUT you can buy PC games super, super cheap on eBay or even only a few months after release, so it actually evens out in that regard.

Warlord Alpha, you raise a great point - however it's accepted that most consoles have far shorter life-spans AND if you ARE playing an older game system then you are admittedly missing out on newer games and better graphics and such.

Most PCs shelf-life range in the 3-4 years though I've seen them stretch to 4-5 with only a videocard upgrade ($100-200 these days). Analyst claim that consoles life-cycle ranges around 4-5 years. If you factor in Xbox Live and the extra cost of NEW games (not used ones because most gamers are going to buy their triple-A titles at launch, not months later) for the console over those extra years, the PC still ends up being more economical in the end.

BUT...all that being said, I'm only posting this to refute some of the trite inaccurate stuff you hear about PC gaming. I now enjoy both console AND PC gaming and you can too! :)

Thanks for reading - some great responses and points brought up here.

[Warlord Alpha]

Most PCs shelf-life range in the 3-4 years though I've seen them stretch to 4-5 with only a videocard upgrade ($100-200 these days). Analyst claim that consoles life-cycle ranges around 4-5 years. If you factor in Xbox Live and the extra cost of NEW games (not used ones because most gamers are going to buy their triple-A titles at launch, not months later) for the console over those extra years, the PC still ends up being more economical in the end.

BUT...all that being said, I'm only posting this to refute some of the trite inaccurate stuff you hear about PC gaming. I now enjoy both console AND PC gaming and you can too! :)

Thanks for reading - some great responses and points brought up here.

Thanks for clearing that sort of stuff up for me. I don't use my computer for any gaming beyond the occasional flash game, so I don't know much of anything about the gaming side of PCs, including building one (although I do know what a lot of the parts do, so thats a small step).

So, squeezing more value out of a console (relative to a PC) is giving it a longer lifespan and not buying your games new (or, on the 360, arcade games are always a good bet).

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

Most PCs shelf-life range in the 3-4 years though I've seen them stretch to 4-5 with only a videocard upgrade ($100-200 these days). Analyst claim that consoles life-cycle ranges around 4-5 years. If you factor in Xbox Live and the extra cost of NEW games (not used ones because most gamers are going to buy their triple-A titles at launch, not months later) for the console over those extra years, the PC still ends up being more economical in the end.

BUT...all that being said, I'm only posting this to refute some of the trite inaccurate stuff you hear about PC gaming. I now enjoy both console AND PC gaming and you can too! :)

Thanks for reading - some great responses and points brought up here.

Thanks for clearing that sort of stuff up for me. I don't use my computer for any gaming beyond the occasional flash game, so I don't know much of anything about the gaming side of PCs, including building one (although I do know what a lot of the parts do, so thats a small step).

So, squeezing more value out of a console (relative to a PC) is giving it a longer lifespan and not buying your games new (or, on the 360, arcade games are always a good bet).

Yeah, given the choice between a new game, or a used one for $5 less, I'll usually go with the used one simply because it's the same thing except less money.

[Wytefang]

If I was more of a die-hard console gamer, I'd definitely NEVER buy any game brand new. It's just a huge rip-off. It doesn't seem terribly fair that console players have to pay more for the same game that I'm buying on release day ($10-20 more). Bleah!

Shame on console devs!!!

[Warlord Alpha]

Yeah, given the choice between a new game, or a used one for $5 less, I'll usually go with the used one simply because it's the same thing except less money.

Thats exactly what you SHOULDN'T do. For 5 dollars, 5 dollars, you are giving a bunch of money to a greedy store and ripping the maker of the game out of that money. I mean, if the used game is MUCH cheaper, like 10, 15+ dollars, then thats a better reason, but 5 dollars?



Shame on console devs!!!

Console devs don't do that to us, console PUBLISHERS do it. Blame MS, Activision, Sony, and Nintendo.

[Wytefang]

Warlord is correct - my bad - I had to type that last sentence under pressure to "GET OFF THE COMPUTER!!" by my pregnant wife. LOL

I meant to say shame on publishers and the console publishing industry in general. I understand that prices are prices but they could at least keep things even across the board. Oh well.

[Warlord Alpha]

but they could at least keep things even across the board. Oh well.

Nah, they just understand their consumer base well. They know full well we enjoy being taken advantage of and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make sure we get just that.

I remember in one of my old magazines there was this awesome little pie chart of exactly where the money goes for a game like Halo 3 or Fable or other big name console games. lemme see if I can find it. It was pretty interesting.

[jschild]

Every console game maker must pay the console owners a royalty to make a game for their console, much of that extra $10 bucks comes from that.

The reason? When the consoles come out, they almost never make a penny on them for the first few years (Xbox is finally in the black, PS3 is still losing money). The big exception this time around is Nintendo. It made money off the first Wii sold.

As for PC, let's look at a few things.

Ease of use - very low for the average consumer in terms of gaming, often requiring forum visits to get many games to work fully and properly.

Exclusives - Very good on here, but at the same time, with the exception of most Xbox exclusives, most console games don't come to the computer (and those Xbox exclusives, like Mass Effect, often come more than a year after the original console version).

Online play - usually good, but your mileage greatly varies from game to game and setup can occasionally be a hassle as there is no system-wide standard like xbox live. However, Alist titles usually rival the capabilities of Xbox live for free.

MMO's - not everyone's cup of teas, but online MMO play is still king on PC. Am I the only who chuckles every time Sony brags about MAG for the PS3 with its 256 !!!!! Players in one game at a time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMAZING!......or not.

Deep Strategy games - Until I see a non dumbed down Total War or Civ game on a console and done well, it's no challenge.

Bugginess - This one used to be the sole province of the PC, but consoles are having more trouble with it lately. However, time to get the game fixed is usually far superior to most PC titles.

Versitility - This one depends on what you want - Both Xbox and PS3 offer superior multimedia options - in conjunction with a computer - allowing easy and seamless play on the TV. This can also be done with a PC, but it is much more complicated and not recommended for a non-techie. However, the computer wins in the 'Net and productivity arena. Even now with media center, you don't really want a PC as the center point of your house, but an Xbox or PS3 you would - but they need your computer to take maximum advantage of their capabilities.

The biggest problem with PC's? Unless you have someone build you a gaming computer or you know enough to build one yourself, 95% of the gaming public have PC's that are trash for any kind of real gaming. Until the day all PC's come with real 3d cards by default, that won't change. However, they can pick up any console, most of which are like computers anyway in versitility, and they can game straight out of the box, and most consoles have 10 year life cycles anyway (MS just said the Xbox is in the middle of its life cycle for example), because it costs too much to churn them out faster nowadays.

[Warlord Alpha]

This is pretty much what I was talking about, except not in chart form.

http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/pc/articles/21118.aspx

and here is another site that says the same thing but simpler: http://www.xboxspies.com/xbox-360-news/where-does-the-money-you-pay-for-video-games-all-go/

[jschild]

Which pretty much shows they don't make much profit. IE, those $60 buck games cost that much because they cost tens of millions to make.

As to why the PC costs less? That's easy, it will sell, for most games, about a 1/10th as much as the consoles will sell so they lower the price point to encourage sales a bit. They can afford to do that mostly due to not having to pay any liscense fee for the PC. Plus, if it is priced too high on the PC, they have to fear the loss in sales due to piracy, which really isn't an issue with the consoles.

[Warlord Alpha]

Which pretty much shows they don't make much profit. IE, those $60 buck games cost that much because they cost tens of millions to make.

Not all of them take that much to make. Just all of the good ones :p



As to why the PC costs less? That's easy, it will sell, for most games, about a 1/10th as much as the consoles will sell so they lower the price point to encourage sales a bit.



Did you just make that up? It doesn't seem accurate.

They can afford to do that mostly due to not having to pay any liscense fee for the PC. Plus, if it is priced too high on the PC, they have to fear the loss in sales due to piracy, which really isn't an issue with the consoles.

I don't think price is the main driving factor of price is piracy. And the license fee isn't that large relative to how the rest of the money is spent. But there are PLENTY of licensed games for the PC.

[Wytefang]

JSChild, I liked your breakdown - if it's not annoying to you, I will add a few comments here and there to your points. Again, it's a really interesting topic to me (and hopefully others):

As for PC, let's look at a few things.

Ease of use - very low for the average consumer in terms of gaming, often requiring forum visits to get many games to work fully and properly.

Again, here is where I find a lot of the problem - perception. The words you've used here "often requiring forum visits" and such aren't entirely accurate anymore. Perhaps even 5 years ago, I'd have agreed to some extent with the use of the hyperbolic word "often" but not now. I'd suggest "occasionally" as a much more fair and accurate assessment. As I've pointed out previously, with STEAM, GameShadow, Windows, and the games themselves auto-patching and such, this has really become much less of a problem these days.


Exclusives - Very good on here, but at the same time, with the exception of most Xbox exclusives, most console games don't come to the computer (and those Xbox exclusives, like Mass Effect, often come more than a year after the original console version).

Again, I have to take exception to the term "most" (when referring to most console games NOT coming to the PC). This is simply not really true anymore - most console games as of late have been for all systems. That's not always a good thing as console ports can be notoriously crappy but sometimes it's a totally different story like with Mass Effect. Yeah, it was a year later before PC gamers got their hands on it BUT on the positive side, it was vastly better-looking and had some excellent UI improvements over the console versions. Definitely worth the small delay, imho.

I agreed with your remarks about Online connectivity, MMOS, and Strategy titles. Good comments that I agree with entirely.


Bugginess - This one used to be the sole province of the PC, but consoles are having more trouble with it lately. However, time to get the game fixed is usually far superior to most PC titles.

Actually, this isn't really true - it's more the reverse. Since MicroSoft insists on verifying everything, it can take WAY longer for bug fixes (aka Patches) to release for console problems. Meanwhile a PC developer doesn't have to run their patch by MicroSoft's notoriously slow approval process. It's not a big deal as both consoles and PCs aren't going to let a bug sit around forever but I'm happier with the faster times for patches on PC.


The biggest problem with PC's? Unless you have someone build you a gaming computer or you know enough to build one yourself, 95% of the gaming public have PC's that are trash for any kind of real gaming. Until the day all PC's come with real 3d cards by default, that won't change. However, they can pick up any console, most of which are like computers anyway in versitility, and they can game straight out of the box, and most consoles have 10 year life cycles anyway (MS just said the Xbox is in the middle of its life cycle for example), because it costs too much to churn them out faster nowadays.

I agree that one big problem is that pre-fab PCs don't have good enough built-in videocard solutions and hopefully that's something that will get better with time. That being said, despite MicroSoft saying that the 360 is in the middle of its life-cycle, previously iterations had roughly a 4-5 year life-cycle. Next-gen consoles out now are going to have to stretch their life-cycles, certainly, to make a profit. But meanwhile, in 5 years when a new console may show up, PC games will have reached even higher tiers of graphic and processing power. It's the age-old leapfrog game between the two types of gaming platforms. Consoles at launch are usually a teeny bit ahead of current PCs (or usually even with them) but within a year (at most), PC tech jumps ahead of that curve. It happened with the 360 and PS3 within a year of their launches Nvidia's latest videocard blasted what they were using out of the water (you'd think that the big console makers would pressure Nvidia to NOT release that tech for a while but for some reason they're happy to let it happen - kinda weird if you ask me).

Anyway, some good stuff in your post. :)

[Wytefang]

Side comment about pricing for PC.

The main factor keeping costs for PC games usually a decent amount lower than their equivalent console versions is the lack of the licensing fee paid to Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. It's not an issue of licenses for movie tie-ins or something like that, it's the license that 3rd-party software developers have to pay to Sony, MS, and Nintendo in order to make the games on those consoles. Without that fee, PC developers can recoup a bigger portion of the profits. (There's a great book about this you can buy and read called "The Business of Game Design" or something like that, it's got some really coo info about the gaming industry for those who are planning to get into it.)

Another factor is digital distribution (which we're starting to find out is MUCH larger than anyone knew or suspected for PC gaming). So much larger that the profitability of PC gaming may be a lot greater than previously suspected. Without a box, manual, printing costs, CD-master costs, fees to a rip-off retailer like Gamestop for simply putting the game on the shelves, PC games can retail for much lower and still generate a very good profit. :D

[jschild]

Did you just make that up? It doesn't seem accurate.

don't think price is the main driving factor of price is piracy. And the license fee isn't that large relative to how the rest of the money is spent. But there are PLENTY of licensed games for the PC.

You are not understanding what a Liscense Fee is. It is a fee, paid by the publisher, to have the right to make a game for a specific console. This does not happen on the PC.

Your own data that you linked showed that it is about 11.5% of the total cost of the game. That amounts to almost 7 dollars out of a $60 game. You wondered why earlier why a console game costs $10 more. Right there is 70% of the difference.

Again, here is where I find a lot of the problem - perception. The words you've used here "often requiring forum visits" and such aren't entirely accurate anymore. Perhaps even 5 years ago, I'd have agreed to some extent with the use of the hyperbolic word "often" but not now. I'd suggest "occasionally" as a much more fair and accurate assessment. As I've pointed out previously, with STEAM, GameShadow, Windows, and the games themselves auto-patching and such, this has really become much less of a problem these days.

The average computer user does not use Steam unless the game they bought at a store requires it. A-list titles are not the problem in this case, it's the vast amount of shovel-ware that permeates the PC landscape. The average PC owner does not know what Gameshadow is and Windows only updates some drivers, and even then not the newest one in most cases. It is, however, much better than it was 5 years ago

Again, I have to take exception to the term "most" (when referring to most console games NOT coming to the PC). This is simply not really true anymore - most console games as of late have been for all systems. That's not always a good thing as console ports can be notoriously crappy but sometimes it's a totally different story like with Mass Effect. Yeah, it was a year later before PC gamers got their hands on it BUT on the positive side, it was vastly better-looking and had some excellent UI improvements over the console versions. Definitely worth the small delay, imho.

Really, where are all the Wii games (or any Nintendo game period) on the PC? And for the rest, you can solely thank the Xbox for those console games because there is very little work to be done to port them over (Valve, in fact, refuses to port to PS3 most of their simply because of the work invovled). Pre-Xbox 360, the PC was lucky to get any game out of 10. And while I do agree it looks a bit better, I just finished yesterday beating Mass Effect on the 360 and the difference in graphics is negligible (at least in HD). Both systems suffered pop-ins horribly. The minigames for hacking however were superior for the PC, though not worth the 14-15 month extra wait however.

Actually, this isn't really true - it's more the reverse. Since MicroSoft insists on verifying everything, it can take WAY longer for bug fixes (aka Patches) to release for console problems. Meanwhile a PC developer doesn't have to run their patch by MicroSoft's notoriously slow approval process. It's not a big deal as both consoles and PCs aren't going to let a bug sit around forever but I'm happier with the faster times for patches on PC.

Patch wait times are totally dependent on the publisher on the PC. As for the console - MS doesn't like multiple patches - instead preferring the "one patch" approach when possible. This one is a wash because it depends so much on the game maker and not really either platform (each having possible advantages).

That being said, despite MicroSoft saying that the 360 is in the middle of its life-cycle, previously iterations had roughly a 4-5 year life-cycle.

The Xbox (not the 360 but the first one) had a 4 year cycle, the shortest in recent history. There is no reason to expect Nintendo, MS, or Sony to put out any new console for the next few years.

The problem is, until PC's come standard with a decent video card, they will continue to slip behind. There is no unified front with PC makers and because of that, it continues to slowly die. Couple that with consoles finally stopping dumbing down their games and approaching PC complexity, PC gaming is hurting bad outside of sims, strategy, and MMO's and only the MMO's are raking in the dough. I wish it was otherwise as I haven't gamed on anything until very, very, recently and finally saw the writing on the wall. I only see the situation getting worse except for MMO's for the PC and that is sad.

[Warlord Alpha]

Did you just make that up? It doesn't seem accurate.

don't think price is the main driving factor of price is piracy. And the license fee isn't that large relative to how the rest of the money is spent. But there are PLENTY of licensed games for the PC.

You are not understanding what a Liscense Fee is. It is a fee, paid by the publisher, to have the right to make a game for a specific console. This does not happen on the PC.

Your own data that you linked showed that it is about 11.5% of the total cost of the game. That amounts to almost 7 dollars out of a $60 game. You wondered why earlier why a console game costs $10 more. Right there is 70% of the difference.


Ok, so first-party publishers (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo) are going to pay themselves a fee? Obviously that isn't going to happen, so you are left with ONLY third party PUBLISHERS paying the fee like Activision.

[jschild]

They probably do charge the game developers (IE, MS did not make Halo, Bungie did) for the rights to make the game for the system, and with the exception of Nintendo, the vast bulk of games made for the Xbox and PS3 are Third party.

Couple that with game development cost in the tens of millions (it costs as much to make Halo 3 or GTA4 or RE5 as it costs to make a big budget movie.) 60+ million game development costs are not that rare anymore. Again, you disregard the very data you provided that shows that they aren't making massive profit. And what happens when a game loses money? (Just like the movies again, most games make no money at all). DId you just feel like posting data that you disbelieve?

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

Yeah, given the choice between a new game, or a used one for $5 less, I'll usually go with the used one simply because it's the same thing except less money.

Thats exactly what you SHOULDN'T do. For 5 dollars, 5 dollars, you are giving a bunch of money to a greedy store and ripping the maker of the game out of that money. I mean, if the used game is MUCH cheaper, like 10, 15+ dollars, then thats a better reason, but 5 dollars?



Shame on console devs!!!

Console devs don't do that to us, console PUBLISHERS do it. Blame MS, Activision, Sony, and Nintendo.

Oh bo-ho, Nintendo now can only have a 23 karat solid gold statue (I know that was in a South Park episode about pyracy, but I think it applies here also). Once someone buys a game, it's theirs and they can sell it to Gamestop if they wish, and I can buy it from Gamestop if I wish. using your reasoning, garage sales and libraries are now cheating the original makers/authors out of money.

If Nintendo and Capcom didn't wan't me to buy RE4: Wii Edition used at $17 instead of $20 new, they should make their games downloadable or something that isn't easy to resell. You don't see people selling World of Goo (a game that was exclusively downloadable) to Gamestop.

Gamestop is a business. The goal of a business is to make money. They don't give you alot of money for your games, but no one is forcing you to sell them or buy them from Gamestop.

[jschild]

One of the single biggest reasons I've moved to consoles over PC.

I can rent them from Gamefly. I have to buy any PC game I want, risking 30-50 bucks for a game I might play through once, if that.

[Warlord Alpha]

They probably do charge the game developers (IE, MS did not make Halo, Bungie did) for the rights to make the game for the system, and with the exception of Nintendo, the vast bulk of games made for the Xbox and PS3 are Third party.

Couple that with game development cost in the tens of millions (it costs as much to make Halo 3 or GTA4 or RE5 as it costs to make a big budget movie.) 60+ million game development costs are not that rare anymore. Again, you disregard the very data you provided that shows that they aren't making massive profit. And what happens when a game loses money? (Just like the movies again, most games make no money at all). DId you just feel like posting data that you disbelieve?

I love how you are taking my words and twisting them completely out of context.

All I was saying is that that data changes from game to game. That was an outline at best, and while it likely represents a great deal of games, it is definitely not representative of all of them. For example, Microsoft owns some game studios and publishes a lot of games, so no publisher fee there. And some games don't have gigantic budgets or huge development teams but still succeed (see: Xbox Live Arcade). You are treating that data I shared as 100% fact for every game meanwhile I am trying to tell you that its not always going to be that way.

And then somehow you arrive at the conclusion that I am either ignoring the data or don't believe it.

[jschild]

Well, you've complained about it twice. You were complaining about the $60 games. Well, most A-list titles have very expensive budgets (Not all, but most do). Couple high production costs with the simple fact that MOST games that come out end up losing money, the game publishers would of course want to minimize that loss is why you get there. Of course Live Arcade games have different pay scales, they also don't cost $60 either.

You seem to think someone like MS or Sony should spend 25 to 40 million (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/arts/24halo.html) to make a game, expect it to succeed, and just ream the consumer over the coals. There are many games that costs rival or exceed Halo 3, but instead of selling 8 million units, push about 100k instead and end up losing millions.

There will be variations of course, I never said that, but that is why, as a rule, console games cost more than PC games. The License fee alone accounts for almost all the disparity.

[Warlord Alpha]

Oh. My. God. I can't believe this.

Well, you've complained about it twice. You were complaining about the $60 games.

I honestly don't mind paying $60. There are games where I would pay MORE to play them, thats how much I enjoy playing them. I don't know how you see me to be complaining about paying, but....


Well, most A-list titles have very expensive budgets (Not all, but most do). Couple high production costs with the simple fact that MOST games that come out end up losing money, the game publishers would of course want to minimize that loss is why you get there. Of course Live Arcade games have different pay scales, they also don't cost $60 either.


I have no idea what you are trying to say here, although I used the Live Arcade as an example of how the payscales differ from game to game.


You seem to think someone like MS or Sony should spend 25 to 40 million (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/arts/24halo.html) to make a game, expect it to succeed, and just ream the consumer over the coals.

I'd love to see where I said that.

There are many games that costs rival or exceed Halo 3, but instead of selling 8 million units, push about 100k instead and end up losing millions.

Yes, but there are many many factors why a game is good and succeeds, and money is one amongst many. It would be impossible to isolate a huge budget as being the sole reason a game succeeds. Case in point, once again, XBLA.


There will be variations of course, I never said that, but that is why, as a rule, console games cost more than PC games. The License fee alone accounts for almost all the disparity.

Give me a link, right now, that says or implies that the difference in cost between console games and PC games is due mostly to the License fee.

[Melwing17]

I always thought PC games are cheaper because they have to be, as an incentive to not just download/steal them.

[Wytefang]

The average computer user does not use Steam unless the game they bought at a store requires it. A-list titles are not the problem in this case, it's the vast amount of shovel-ware that permeates the PC landscape. The average PC owner does not know what Gameshadow is and Windows only updates some drivers, and even then not the newest one in most cases. It is, however, much better than it was 5 years ago

I think it's really too difficult (without extensive surveys) to really know how many PC users have auto-patching programs like Steam, GameShadow, or others so claiming that most average consumers don't have them or aren't aware of them doesn't seem terribly factual (to me). Windows will either update or make you aware of EVERY hardware driver you need, not just some. Whether you use them or not is up to you, of course. Also, you don't seem to be aware of just how many modern games (made in the past 2 years) are now coming with auto-patching systems. I have been pleasantly surprised at just how many have been providing this feature. :)

Really, where are all the Wii games (or any Nintendo game period) on the PC? And for the rest, you can solely thank the Xbox for those console games because there is very little work to be done to port them over (Valve, in fact, refuses to port to PS3 most of their simply because of the work invovled). Pre-Xbox 360, the PC was lucky to get any game out of 10.

Well you could also argue where are the Wii games on the 360 or PS3, too? The answer is that most PC gamers aren't going to want to play the last-generation games on Nintendo's family-friendly Wii. That and Nintendo (and Japan, for that matter) have little vested interest in boosting PC gaming, so why would one of the giants of console gaming in Japan make any effort to port their games over (even if PC gamers really wanted to play them - most of whom I know, don't - not that they aren't fun games!).

And while I do agree it looks a bit better, I just finished yesterday beating Mass Effect on the 360 and the difference in graphics is negligible (at least in HD). Both systems suffered pop-ins horribly. The minigames for hacking however were superior for the PC, though not worth the 14-15 month extra wait however.

I agree about the pop-in - which should've been addressed with the PC version at the very least (but Bioware has started slipping - interestingly enough, it seemed to start once they began with console games, sigh). However, unless you're playing the game on your PC at 1900x1200, I wouldn't expect you to notice the differences too much. (I am fortunate enough to have 24" Dell LCD and it's just awesome.) Also the mouse-aiming gave the combat a far better feel (most reviews noted this) and having the weapons/biotic effects on one screen was also an improvement. The big thing was being able to assign hotkeys which made it so you didn't have to pause the action and kept things far more fluid than in the console version. I also liked that the DLC was free for PC users. All huge benefits that you didn't really mention but that I think are worth noting.

I agree with you that the slower patching on consoles (at least on 360) doesn't matter that much to me since they tend to add more into one patch due to the delay. :)

The problem is, until PC's come standard with a decent video card, they will continue to slip behind.

Ah, but then you're taking away the PC's greatest strength which will always be its customization. The sad thing is that current generations of gamers are being brought up without an ability to make tech decisions at all OR with the expectation that things should be spoon-fed to them and that mindset is slipping into console games, too. How many times have we all had to sit through retarded babysitting tutorials in console games? Ugh. But that's besides the point. I think it's a fantastic strength of the PC as a system that if you find yourself dealing with some lag, you can upgrade and have the equivalent of a next-gen console all over again. That's amazing. Instead of sitting around worrying about the infamous console mantra "is it 30 FPS?" (And I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just get SO tired of hearing console devs tout that - my thought when I hear that is always, "well you wouldn't have to sit around worrying about that if you could upgrade your consoles.")

There is no unified front with PC makers and because of that, it continues to slowly die.

Now here is where you're sort of just kicking out unfounded stuff as facts. A more unified architecture would certainly raise the bar on PC systems (while, as noted above, removing some of the flexibility with building your own systems) but the PC is hardly dying. Once NPD started listing digital sales this past year (well at least some of the digital sales figures) analysts noted that the PC was actually surprisingly healthy, overall, with sales figures that had risen in recent years. I just can't see those analysis representing a system that is "slowly dying."

Couple that with consoles finally stopping dumbing down their games and approaching PC complexity, PC gaming is hurting bad outside of sims, strategy, and MMO's and only the MMO's are raking in the dough. I wish it was otherwise as I haven't gamed on anything until very, very, recently and finally saw the writing on the wall. I only see the situation getting worse except for MMO's for the PC and that is sad.

I think you don't really need to feel sad - some of what you're sad about isn't really accurate. PCs are the de facto home for MMOs (we agree on this), RTS (we agree on this), Turn-Based Strat (the best ones still release on PC first if they even show up on consoles at all), FPS (I think anyone being honest with themselves about control schemes will admit that the PC is STILL the first home for shooters, even if they ARE doing well on consoles too - or at least you can argue that both types of platforms are tied in this regard due to the PC's superior controls and graphics), RPG (I'll call this a tie but I've seen way better, more creative and interesting RPGs in recent years on PC than on consoles - and I would have given the nod to consoles several years back, to be honest), and I'd also call Simulation a win on PCs (even Racing games since there are some really great ones on both platforms - though the PC wins the air-combat sim category, small as it may be these days), I'd also call Adventure games a tie since they can work so well on either platform. So that leaves Fighting games (though SFIV is hitting PC now which is strange) and Platforming as the only two genres that consoles could clearly say that they own and play better on.

Again, I wouldn't call that an ominous sign. I prefer to have all the genres covered because I really enjoy fighting and platform games so my owning a 360 covers all the bases for me. :D

Good discussion here, as we go along - some great points being brought up and politely discussed. :D

[jschild]

Give me a link, right now, that says or implies that the difference in cost between console games and PC games is due mostly to the License fee.

Thanks for providing the links that you, yourself, posted.

This is pretty much what I was talking about, except not in chart form.

http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/pc/articles/21118.aspx

and here is another site that says the same thing but simpler: http://www.xboxspies.com/xbox-360-news/where-does-the-money-you-pay-for-video-games-all-go/

Ok, Both of these give ranges for a typical $60 game has the license being anywhere from $7 to $12. Subtract that out and that $60 game now costs 48 to 53 dollars.

[Wytefang]

I'm not trying to cause a ruckus or make you feel hog-piled here, Warlord Alpha but here's a link that touches on the issues fairly well. I wouldn't say that it comes right out and blatantly labels the licensing fee as the main difference but it's fairly well implied:

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/513/ask_the_experts_console_vs_pc_.php

[Warlord Alpha]

I'm not trying to cause a ruckus or make you feel hog-piled here, Warlord Alpha but here's a link that touches on the issues fairly well. I wouldn't say that it comes right out and blatantly labels the licensing fee as the main difference but it's fairly well implied:

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/513/ask_the_experts_console_vs_pc_.php

Thank you. The part I thought most interesting was about the Wii Devkit -

"Schatz recommends that indie developers with an eye on making it in the console space consider developing for the Nintendo Wii. "There are so many Wiis out there and not enough games for it," Schatz says. "I spoke with Nintendo about my second title, and I think they've relaxed this some, but if [the game being pitched] wasn't something specifically [made to use the Wiimote], they were really snobby about it. You really had to utilize everything. But I think they've relaxed this some." He says the Wii dev kits run at about $2,000 apiece. "

Very interesting stuff, though. And I see what was said about the license now -

"You don't need any special license to make a game for PC, whether sold on disc or downloadable. However, console developers have to be approved or certified by the company that owns the console. Only approved developers (and a handful of students and journalists) get access to the development kits that are needed to make a finished and playable game for each console. This is a hurdle for all new game development companies, not just indies."

[jschild]

Windows will either update or make you aware of EVERY hardware driver you need, not just some

This is absolutely not true - Windows never has the latest video card driver from Nvidia at least. It's always on their website long, long, before Windows.

Also, you don't seem to be aware of just how many modern games (made in the past 2 years) are now coming with auto-patching systems. I have been pleasantly surprised at just how many have been providing this feature.

Yes I am aware, but again, step away from any A list title and that wonderful supports disappears in an instant. I do agree that A list titles have generally great support however.

Well you could also argue where are the Wii games on the 360 or PS3, too? The answer is that most PC gamers aren't going to want to play the last-generation games on Nintendo's family-friendly Wii. That and Nintendo (and Japan, for that matter) have little vested interest in boosting PC gaming, so why would one of the giants of console gaming in Japan make any effort to port their games over (even if PC gamers really wanted to play them - most of whom I know, don't - not that they aren't fun games!).

I fully agree on this - I was just more referencing the exclusives in general, of which the PC isn't really hurting as they have many titles solely exclusive to them.

Also the mouse-aiming gave the combat a far better feel (most reviews noted this) and having the weapons/biotic effects on one screen was also an improvement. The big thing was being able to assign hotkeys which made it so you didn't have to pause the action and kept things far more fluid than in the console version. I also liked that the DLC was free for PC users. All huge benefits that you didn't really mention but that I think are worth noting.

And how many normal PC owners have 24" screens? I am envious however :)

The interface was much improved I fully agree, and any FPS will "feel" better with mouse and keyboard over controller (even a Wiimote). However, was it worth 15ish months wait? Imagine you had a movie you really, reallly, wanted to see. Now imagine you are told you will get to see it, as well as your friends in another club. Except that club gets to see the movie LONG before you do. It's not horrible because at least you still get to see it, but its annoying about the wait. I don't think ME2 will have that problem, but I'll be playing it on the Xbox only this time around (I now own 2 copies of the game lol).

Ah, but then you're taking away the PC's greatest strength which will always be its customization. The sad thing is that current generations of gamers are being brought up without an ability to make tech decisions at all OR with the expectation that things should be spoon-fed to them and that mindset is slipping into console games, too. How many times have we all had to sit through retarded babysitting tutorials in console games? Ugh. But that's besides the point. I think it's a fantastic strength of the PC as a system that if you find yourself dealing with some lag, you can upgrade and have the equivalent of a next-gen console all over again. That's amazing. Instead of sitting around worrying about the infamous console mantra "is it 30 FPS?" (And I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just get SO tired of hearing console devs tout that - my thought when I hear that is always, "well you wouldn't have to sit around worrying about that if you could upgrade your consoles.")

But see, most people don't customize their computers. And I'm not saying all computers must have the same card, I'm talking about all PC's (desktops at least) having a minimum video card spec that is useful. No more intel intergrated crap that can't run games that came out 8 years ago. It wouldn't even ramp up cost much to get a decent minimum base - something that is realistic enough for low settings on most regular games.

Now here is where you're sort of just kicking out unfounded stuff as facts. A more unified architecture would certainly raise the bar on PC systems (while, as noted above, removing some of the flexibility with building your own systems) but the PC is hardly dying. Once NPD started listing digital sales this past year (well at least some of the digital sales figures) analysts noted that the PC was actually surprisingly healthy, overall, with sales figures that had risen in recent years. I just can't see those analysis representing a system that is "slowly dying."


And what portion did MMO's account for that? Outside of Blizzard and Sims, the overall PC market is not healthy. In fact, for the entire year of 2008 this is what happened.

2007 PC game sales revenue - 910 million
2008 - 701 million

2007 unit sales - 36.4 million units
2008 unit sales - 29.1 Million units

Console game sales - 2007 - 18 BILLION
console game sales - 2008 - 21.3 Billion

(Data from http://blogs.usatoday.com/technologylive/2009/01/pc-game-sales-s.html)

How is a 200 million dollar drop a sign that things are great (again, not counting the MMO market which is dominated by the PC and growing).

I don't want PC gaming to weaken, but it is doing that, and the mantra of better graphics simply isn't true for the average PC gamer. They simply require too much work for the average consumer, for far too little extra bang. It's not dead and will never die, but it will never reclaim its past glory either. There is a day coming when people like Blizzard start making for the console too and I doubt it's too far away. Most others have moved on simply because the money is in the console market - Blizz is the one true exception to the rule on that - They know their market far better than anyone, but for A list "big" games, almost no one else makes them exclusive to the PC, and most barely bother with rushed ports that don't even take full advantage of the PC (See Ghostbusters, which doesn't even have multiplayer for the PC???? but has it for the PS3 and Xbox).

I'm not against PC gaming, considering 95% of my gaming has been done on it. I just see the writing on the wall - MS isn't supporting it, the PC sellers aren't supporting it, and the game developers are mostly abadoning it or making it a secondary concern. Things change and move on, whether we want it to or not. It's been sliding for years and will continue to do so, with Blizzard being the sole big bright spot, developer wise. There will be other great games exclusive to it (looking forward to Diablo 3 here) but I think there will be less and less A list titles coming. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I will be.

[Warlord Alpha]

Someone needs to change the title of this thread. "Gaming Platform Discussion" seems more accurate after pages of heated PC vs Console debate.

At any rate, I have a couple (random?) points to make:

- Laptops. My computer is a laptop. People wonder why I paid what I did when I could've gotten something spec-wise better, but a desktop. And I always tell them I wanted a laptop. The portability, in my mind, was well worth the extra money. But isn't it true that gaming laptops, while in addition to being ridiculously heavy, don't have many (if any) upgrade options? It was mentioned above about upgrades, and it made me think about that for some random reason.

- OnLive (http://www.onlive.com/). Its a PC disguised as a console! What?

[jschild]

Yeah laptops make for very poor gaming consoles, it's possible, but upgrades are a pain.

It's not a PC, its a steaming console - check Crysis on an Iphone.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/167213/otoy_demo_puts_crysis_grand_theft_auto_4_on_your_phone.html

[Warlord Alpha]

It's not a PC, its a steaming console
There is a PC in there somewhere...or, well, on the other end of an internet connection.

[jschild]

Yeah, but it's just the display. The basic idea is like this.

You connect to the game server. The game server processes the video and your input, then that is streamed to your PC. IE, all you need is the software and a good broadband connection. All the rendering is done server side - the PC simply recieves the images, which is why you can connect to the TV also. Essentially, there is no console - It's a potentially brilliant idea whose time is still several years away. You cannot easily get good HD quality graphics at the current time (since it has to be sent fast enough that the response times are good). If they can get it fully working though - No consoles, no video cards, no more upgrades.

[Melwing17]

It is a freaking amazing product.

I hope it fails completely.


( Competition is SO good for video games. It is an industry that has been fiercely competitive for basically its entire life. And look at how fast it has risen to what it is today. All thanks to 'console wars'. Think where we'd be if Nintendo and Sony had stayed together to release the PlayStation as the SNES CD drive it was originally supposed to be! Ugh, off-topic. Back on! :)

Putting all games into one little box would hurt the end products, I contend. )

[Wytefang]

I fully agree and see your points in your most recent longer post (referencing my comments, JSChild).

With Windows Update, it has NEVER failed to offer me drivers for every piece of hardware I own and that's what I've seen with other PCs so I'm confused why you're not seeing/getting the same functionality? I'll agree that the video drivers are slower than the ones that Nvidia releases but that's not much of a deal-breaker for me as it's usually not terribly necessary for me to update them immediately.

To respond to the sales data you posted (which I was going to post too, ironically - great minds think alike! LOL), this short article was posted at ShackNews in early 2008 by an NPD rep:

An NPD analyst says that the $60 million drop in PC software retail revenue from 2006 to 2007 reflects the industry's movement towards digital distribution, GameDaily reports.

Analyst Anita Fraisure notes that the data, which currently does not account for digital downloads or subscriptions, is no cause for concern.

"As we've seen from a number of our studies, the PC continues to be a top platform in terms of total game playing time," said Fraisure. "I don't think this slight decline in retail sales is anything more than a reflection of a shifting of distribution channels."

The latest numbers reveal that PC sales accounted for only 14% of total revenue for game software sales in 2007. But without a comprehensive perspective of online activity, Fraisure says, the implications of the gap remain unclear.

"Video games software sales, and even just the console portion of that figure have been greater than PC retail sales every year that we've tracked. Yes, the (console and portable) video games retail sales have really exploded, but again, until we can get a measurement of dollars spent online, we won't have the true picture." That's an article discussing data from 2 years back but then in an article posted late in 2008 (that I can't find at the moment), they basically showed that the sales date you've posted here (which I've seen posted when it was released) weren't entirely accurate once they started getting some raw sales data from Steam and guesstimated at WoW and MMO money. (It also didn't include money from Stardock's new digital distribution program, Impulse - which was a bit too new to count at the time.) Also, as everyone should be aware - data is a dangerous thing. It's important to understand how to break it down. For example, comparing 3 consoles' sales versus the single PC platform leads to a misleadingly unbalanced sales margin. When you compare any single console's sales (since it's rare for anyone to own all three consoles) to the PC, those consoles still have a lead but it's nowhere near as dominating.

I guess my point is that it'd be easy to write off the PC as slumping or dying but I'm not really seeing that...yet. I think we can BOTH totally agree on some necessary changes that would really help the platform, at least. :D

[jschild]

Digital Distribution is growing, but again, most people simply don't have the PC to run most games on a PC.

Now, that info might fully lack MMO data (I highly doubt digital distribution would account for anything close to 200 million in sales), that doesn't solve or remedy the overall PC problem.

People just don't use it for general gaming anymore outside of Strategy or MMO's. FPS's do decent, but most of them sell far, far, better on the consoles simply because they run on the consoles. Yes I can make a computer for about 600 that can run Fear 2. But the vast majority of people do not have computers that can run that game. Strategy games for the most part are not big sellers outside a few titles (Starcraft will sell millions easily, however). MMO"s are the only proven big ticket item that is steadily growing for PC's. Even that might change soon however. Champions Online will be on the 360 also. DC Universe will be on the PS3. They are already encroaching on the PC's territory. The biggest bright spot for the PC is that WoW (and Blizzard) care nothing for the consoles right now. The next huge MMO, Star Wars the Old Republic (really, check it out - it's fracking amazing - http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic/preview/star-wars-the-old-republic-hands-on/a-2009070610215182000/g-20081021163120143024 )
will help keep them at bay, but the next generation of consoles will most likely render the PC obsolete as a gaming system because they will most likely be able to do everything a PC can do). They almost can now. There will always be games for the PC, however that doesn't mean it will ever be a real leader after this generation of games comes out.

[Wytefang]

We'll have to agree that your vision for PC gaming is very negative and pessimistic compared to mine, I guess. I've shown you plenty of reasons why there's no reason to think PC gaming is in any kind of trouble at all (and yep, in the article the Digital Distribution games accounted for quite a bit - I wish I could find it and post it..it was a very exciting bit of news). I can't force ya to believe them of course.

As for the blatant hyperbole that "the next generation of consoles will most likely render the PC obsolete as a gaming system" - not a chance, bro. That's pure speculation on your part. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that said before a console launch (I've heard during both of the last cycles, LOL) - I'd be very rich.

The ONLY way consoles could do that IS (humorously enough) to become PCs in their own right. Several industry experts, in fact, have noted that it's actually console gaming that's at a huge risk on many fronts, of ceasing to exist as consoles. One example is the founder of Wild Tangent and former director of Direct X for MicroSoft, Alex St. John, who wrote an intriguing article about the dissolution of consoles as game system - how the PC itself with its open platform is actually the wave of the future in the long-run and how console designers best chance is to turn them into PCs, asap (it was in CPU magazine about a year and a half ago). I will say that PCs may change a bit if the PC industry can force PC sellers to insert quality videocards into every system but that'll only be a change for the better.

No, I don't think the PC is going anyway, ever. It has too many strengths that will never be surpassed and it still has plenty of exclusives genres, where it's by far the best platform, for it to ever go away. It's still every bit as valid as it's always been as a gaming platform. Gamers can feel free to make a choice - go for the closed system with more expensive games but better ease of use or an open platform where they control how powerful their gaming system is with just as potent game genres and cheaper games. It's a pretty fair toss-up, imho. (Which is why I own both types of platforms.)

But like I've always said in here, the best thing is to own all the gaming platforms. Then you don't miss out on any games!! :D

[Aldin]

Certainly all the experimental stuff is happening on the PC - it's the only format where you can make a cheap game and make a profit. Jeff Vogel's been doing it for years. Since I'm more content driven than cut scene driven, I find the current hybrid state of PC gaming absolutely fascinating.

~Aldin, playing what he likes since 1980

ETA A certain irony here since Jeff programs for the Mac first and then translates to the Windows platform, but technically they're both PCs and there are plenty of other designers...

[Uprising]

My main 3 genres are RPG, FPS, and Strategy games. Until consoles are up to par with the PC in terms of those 3 genres, I'll continue to build my own gaming PCs.

[jschild]

Certainly all the experimental stuff is happening on the PC So Braid, Beautiful Katamari, the innovation of motion controls, were all originated on the PC? There is more very small developer innovation generally on the PC (since it's fairly easy to develop for and no fees to pay), but what large innovation is going on? More MMO's, more Sims (the game, not simulations), more remakes of old games?

Add to that high crossover appeal of games like World of Goo, Peggle, and others like that is opening the door for even more small developer innovation on the consoles.

If you honestly think consoles are in danger, i'd like to see some evidence of it. Yes, in some ways they are becoming more PC like in versitility. The problem is that the PC is not making any in-roads in the other direction for the better.

Because of that refusal to simplify and have even basic standards, they will continue to fall behind consoles, who only continue to add to their arsenal.

My main 3 genres are RPG, FPS, and Strategy gamesI'd say they easily rival PC's in RPG's, are close in FPS (just need a mouse/keyboard lol). Strategy games will remain far behind for a long time however. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

[Aldin]

jschild,

Braid was a bit unique, per Wikipedia:

(Jonathan) Blow designed the game as a personal critique of contemporary trends in game development. He funded the project with his own money and spent three years creating it

Katamari Damacy (the success that funded the creation of its sequels) was developed late in the life cycle of the PS2 at the point at which developers could afford to make games for that platform relatively cheaply. It was certainly experimental though, I'll give you that.

For PC experimantation (note that you've equated this with innovation - I certainly have not) I recommend a trip into indie gaming land. Kongregate will do for a start. Most of what I meant about experimentation has to do with the way game developers are paid for their games, though, rather than what types of games are being produced.

I like being able to choose between
-In game ads (or browser ads)
-Purchasing in game money/features
-DL software only
-Sites with bonus credits to be spent on older games and/or based on site credits entirely for game purchases
-Games with free trials or portions and unlockable paid content
-Pay as you go games
-Full upfront fee games with no ongoing costs (and/or individual paid add ons)

PC developers have maximum ability to find their niche market and serve it. This means that the customer will get games that suit them at the lowest possible price (however they consider price). This makes a lot of the innovation you were talking about possible, but it also makes a bevy of inexpensive story and gameplay driven games available. That's where I was going with my experimental comment.

~Aldin, who buys indie games more often than big titles

[Uprising]

I'd say they easily rival PC's in RPG's, are close in FPS (just need a mouse/keyboard lol). Strategy games will remain far behind for a long time however. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.


I had a long reply typed out but I lost my message when I hit back accidentally :?

I'll reply again later.

[jschild]

I like being able to choose between

-In game ads (or browser ads) _ You win here

-Purchasing in game money/features - not sure on this but I know it's been spreading in pc games - "Free" games that are barely free - I've had to explain to my son all the limitations of those "free" games. It is innovative, but I'm not sold on it being a good thing.

-DL software only - I can get many Xbox games that way, and soon many Xbox 360 games as a DL only. All the arcade and community games are DL only, Wii has the same thing and I assume the same is true for PS3. PC still wins on the greatest majority of games but it's not exclusive anymore.

-Sites with bonus credits to be spent on older games and/or based on site credits entirely for game purchases - Not exactly sure what this means, I'm probably just not thinking clearly on what you mean.

-Games with free trials or portions and unlockable paid content - Xbox has tons of demos, and all its arcade games have trial portions. Not sure about PS3, though Wii doesn't offer this I know. I'd say PC still has a small lead, but this gap is closing fast at least on the Xbox (since making a demo for one is as easy as making a demo for the PC).

-Pay as you go games - Not sure if you mean MMO's or what here, again the fault is most likely mine.

-Full upfront fee games with no ongoing costs (and/or individual paid add ons - Again not fully clear, I apologize my most likely faulty knowledge.

I've enjoyed many indie games, but the vast majority are not innovative or any better than the big titles. That market must be nurtured though because there are always those who bring something new to the fold (Braid, World of Goo, etc). Due to license fee's (not sure what fee is paid to Xbox Arcade, but I'm sure there is one), it is safest to design for a PC first most likely. My beef was more with the "all" in the statement, not the basic idea.

[Aldin]

My beef was more with the "all" in the statement, not the basic idea.

*chuckle*

I almost went with the whole "Uh, ah, almost. There are a few, uh, provisos. Ah, a couple of quid pro quos..." but I figured y'all would catch my drift - live and learn, eh? :D

~Aldin, ya ain't never hadda friend like me

[jschild]

Yeah, not a problem at all. I am just impressed with how much Xbox (and I assume PS3) have learned from PC's with DLC and Demo's. Plus all the online multimedia capabilities.

Again, I just wish PC desktops had real, minimum, 3d card specs instead of that awful intel drek that is shoved in most pcs.

[King of the Marro]

360 all the way...

[Uprising]

I'd say they easily rival PC's in RPG's, are close in FPS (just need a mouse/keyboard lol). Strategy games will remain far behind for a long time however. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

Ok. I'll try to remember what my previous post was. This is all my personal opinion and I'm sure most will not agree with me.

RPG: It seems the biggest RPGs in the last 5 years have come out on both consoles and PC. KOTOR I & II, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Oblivion, Fallout III, Fable and probably a few other that I'm forgetting. While you are getting the same game in either situation, the PC is a better overall experience for the following reasons.
You can map your own buttons and set your own configuration to your hearts desire. While a controller has 11 or 12 buttons, my setup has 60+ to choose from, including my mouse.
Higher resolution. Even if you have a 48 inch plasma, my 20 inch flat screen monitor is going to give you a better picture with much better resolutions. I've played Oblivion on big screen HDTVs and as sweet as it looks, my set up is more crisp and sharper.
You can tweak and setup advanced graphics properties that the console versions simply don't provide via graphics cards utilities.
Modding. Yes, modding. All you have to do is look at the massive volume of user made mods for Oblivion or Fallout III. It's astounding. Don't like the way the AI is performing in Oblivion for your PS3? Too bad. Don't like the way the AI is performing in Oblivion for the PC? You have loads of options and mods to adjust that. I'll also say that it seems pure RPGs are a thing of the past. You won't find a game like Baldur's Gate anymore. Most RPGs are a mixed genre. Action/RPG, FPS/RPG, Strategy/RPG. Again, the computer even excels in that department. Diablo II anyone? Deus Ex? Gold standards for their respective genres. I'm not gonna include MMO into this area because even though they have many, many RPG elements, they are bloated and deserve their own listing.

FPS: Outside of Halo and Gears of War I can't think of any FPS games that work better on the console as opposed to the PC. I have Gears of War and Halo I & II for my PC and they are clunky. Probably much better on the 360.

Strategy: Even though the PC dominates this genre it's getting harder and harder to find a decent strategy game now. Dawn of War II was a huge disappointment for me and I'm really looking forward to Starcraft II to fill the void.

[jschild]

Outside of Halo and Gears of War I can't think of any FPS games that work better on the console as opposed to the PC. I have Gears of War and Halo I & II for my PC and they are clunky. Probably much better on the 360

I didn't say they were better on the console, I said they are very close and they are.

Strategy: Even though the PC dominates this genre it's getting harder and harder to find a decent strategy game now. Dawn of War II was a huge disappointment for me and I'm really looking forward to Starcraft II to fill the void.

I do agree, and the problem is mostly sales. Except for a few A-list titles (starcraft, Command and Conquer, Civilization) they don't sell like they used too. And of those, only a very rare few can be considered blockbusters (As Starcraft 2 will be).

RPG: It seems the biggest RPGs in the last 5 years have come out on both consoles and PC. KOTOR I & II, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Oblivion, Fallout III, Fable and probably a few other that I'm forgetting. While you are getting the same game in either situation, the PC is a better overall experience for the following reasons.

You can map your own buttons and set your own configuration to your hearts desire. While a controller has 11 or 12 buttons, my setup has 60+ to choose from, including my mouse.

But most decent RPG's don't need that many buttons, however they might need more than 12 to be fair. Most of those quick keys are never needed, unless the game has a horribly clunky interface. But the overall flexibity is better on PC, I'll grant you that.

Higher resolution. Even if you have a 48 inch plasma, my 20 inch flat screen monitor is going to give you a better picture with much better resolutions. I've played Oblivion on big screen HDTVs and as sweet as it looks, my set up is more crisp and sharper.

This depends on your video card - which the vast, vast majority of computers lack a decent one. It doesn't matter that you can easily spring for a really decent one for 100-150 bucks simply because most people won't upgrade to one. And personally, I preferred Mass Effect on my 32 inch HDTV over it on my 17 monitor. That is purely a personal preference however.

You can tweak and setup advanced graphics properties that the console versions simply don't provide via graphics cards utilities.

Those controls are also needed because most video cards cannot run with all settings on max, thus they need ways to lower the graphics to get it to run at an acceptable rate. This isn't an issue with consoles, which is why they don't have all those settings.

Modding. Yes, modding. All you have to do is look at the massive volume of user made mods for Oblivion or Fallout III. It's astounding. Don't like the way the AI is performing in Oblivion for your PS3? Too bad. Don't like the way the AI is performing in Oblivion for the PC? You have loads of options and mods to adjust that.

I'll grant you the modding, though by allowing DLC, consoles are catching up a bit. They still have a long, long, long, way to go however.

I'll also say that it seems pure RPGs are a thing of the past. You won't find a game like Baldur's Gate anymore. Most RPGs are a mixed genre. Action/RPG, FPS/RPG, Strategy/RPG. Again, the computer even excels in that department. Diablo II anyone? Deus Ex? Gold standards for their respective genres. I'm not gonna include MMO into this area because even though they have many, many RPG elements, they are bloated and deserve their own listing.

Most likely, though be sure to check out Dragon Age coming from Bioware - it is their spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate games.

I'll grant you Diablo 2 as a gold standard for action/rpg's (though it could easily be ported to console, Blizz just doesn't care about consoles), but Deus Ex is easily rivaled as an action RPG by Mass Effect (loved both games however). And more and more, those games are primarily being built (action/rpgs at least) with the console in mind first (Re: Mass Effect, Fallout 3, etc, were primarily designed with console users in mind - though with a fully understanding of how to make them work properly on the PC - something many people do not understand how to do).

[Wytefang]

I just want to clarify something for those reading our posts - JSChild has never said he's anti-PC or doesn't believe in it as a platform, either, which is why I've enjoyed our discussions (though I still think he's a "glass half-empty" guy in regards to PC gaming while I'm half-full, LOL).

One comment, though, JSchild said,

Those controls are also needed because most video cards cannot run with all settings on max, thus they need ways to lower the graphics to get it to run at an acceptable rate. This isn't an issue with consoles, which is why they don't have all those settings.

This could just as easily be worded to say that console-maker's desire to keep the controls out of the hands of the mass-market gamers is why you can't access the same amount of fine-tuned controls as PC gamers - well, that and the limitations of the videocards in consoles. It's the main reason you always hear console gamers and devs tossing out their famous mantra of "30 FPS."

[jschild]

Well, the 30 FPS is because having 100 FPS is completely useless. Your eyes cannot tell the difference unless it drops below 24 FPS. It has nothing to do with preventing the controls because they graphics are perfectly tailored for the game console (not that they are prefect, just no need to bump up or down the quality) other than brightness, which most console games include now. Having 4xAA or 8xAA only matters if your graphic card chugs a bit too much on 8, but runs good on 4. There is no need to fiddle on the console because it is designed for that hardware specifically. However, allowing it to ramp higher if you happen to have the best video card on the market is a nice bonus.

I've enjoyed this conversation also, and as i've stated, been a PC gamer for a long, long, time. Since King's Quest days - just have been discouraged at how many games don't come out on the PC, or much later, and have been impressed with how much progress consoles has came. There are pluses and minuses to all the platforms, Wii/Xbox/PS3/PC, and for me know, I think the Xbox/PS3 is the best fit for me. But that doesn't mean my PC will be gathering dust, just that it won't get the workout it used to.

[Wytefang]

For me it's still PC by a large margin followed by the 360 (though I've had a LOT of fun with specific consoles titles lately).

That's one thing I do loathe about console games - the usual lack of AA. Games look a lot worse without it. Makes me really wish that they WOULD offer the options for tweaking at least. :(

[Warlord Alpha]

For me it's still PC by a large margin followed by the 360 (though I've had a LOT of fun with specific consoles titles lately).

That's one thing I do loathe about console games - the usual lack of AA. Games look a lot worse without it. Makes me really wish that they WOULD offer the options for tweaking at least. :(

I'm just speculating here, but as someone mentioned earlier, the default graphics chip in computers isn't made for any real gaming. Do you think, as a method of keeping costs down, the GPU in consoles isn't the best, and therefore can't support the AA while maintaining a good frame rate? Keep in mind that the current consoles have switched to smaller chipsets, sure, but the chipsets are still capable of nothing more than they were 5 years ago. The only reason for shrinking the chips, at least for the Xbox anyways, was to keep heat minimal.

Some of the more polished games have a lot of AA though, and the HUD and menus usually have it.

[smileydude560]

I chose 360 because Project NATAL is going to revolutionize gaming. Lets see Wii beat that. I have a Wii, and it has few good games. All of the games seem gimmicky.

[Lord Pyre]

I chose 360 because Project NATAL is going to revolutionize gaming. Lets see Wii beat that. I have a Wii, and it has few good games. All of the games seem gimmicky.

Sorry, but I fail to see how their revolutionary gaming technology will not seem gimmicky.

I'm sure that it's going to be very gimmicky, especially at first. And any third party games that use it are going to be horrendous.

Just like the Wii! :p

;)

[Warlord Alpha]

I chose 360 because Project NATAL is going to revolutionize gaming. Lets see Wii beat that. I have a Wii, and it has few good games. All of the games seem gimmicky.

Sorry, but I fail to see how their revolutionary gaming technology will not seem gimmicky.

I'm sure that it's going to be very gimmicky, especially at first. And any third party games that use it are going to be horrendous.

Just like the Wii! :p

;)

Want to know why it isn't going to be gimmicky? Because games that shouldn't use it aren't going to be forced to use it.

[Wytefang]

Interestingly enough, Bill Gates just announced (today) that the Nadal technology is going to be used with PCs as well. :)

EDIT/UPDATE - Ol' Bill is saying it'd be used more for some cool Office meeting tech though they can use it for games as well. So it appears their focus for it on PCs would be more productivity-related.

[jschild]

Natal will most likely be abused like the Wiimote is.

The difference is that the Xbox at least has a real controller. So having an option to use Natal in a game that doesn't need it isn't that major.