The Console War Is Over: The PC Already Won

Apart from the vast majority of PC gamers having Windows on their PC's sure.

But I see your point :p

The sad thing is that Microsoft have been promising more support and involvement in PC gaming, and they do nothing.

Additionally though, we're seeing a big shift to other platforms being able to play the same sort of games that were usually restricted to a Windows environment, too. Which really you'd think would have given Microsoft a bit of a kick up the arse, but still nothing.

Overall this seems to boil down to the fact that developers should recognise the potential of the PC market and stop with the console ports. The rubbish about the PC gaming industry dying (mainly because Windows 8 never sold very well to businesses) has pretty much been proven wrong over the same period of time & facts like this should be used by companies as they can still make a decent penny investing a little more time into PC version of games.

Developers do need to recognise the PC market more, however games aren't ported. When people talk about "ports" they actually mean poorly developed PC builds, as you can't actually "port" a game. You have to compile a build specifically for each platform.

What happens is that they compile a build for PC, and then do the barebones with it, not ensuring it takes advantage of the options available for PC users.

You got it right though, they would make more money just by investing that little bit more time. The stuff they often neglect aren't really things that would take much development time to address.
 
I don't like being harsh but people who bought a PS4/Xbone at launch because they probably thought they were going to be missing out on something and have now sold it because they're bored of it are just idiots. Plain and simple.

I think the crucial part here is the "and have now sold it" because really, it would end up costing them more money in the long run to buy once, sell and then buy again at a later date.
 
History has shown that new consoles on day of release are evenly matched with a £1,000 pc, and are set to last ten years

on release day they struggle to play 1080p games at a steady framerate eh? when did 1080p become the norm?

This time round they are matched with a pc costing half as much

Probably down to technology, and they have put too much emphasis on things people don't want....ie, gimmicks which don't work properly

You can build a £1,000 pc these days including a 27" 1440p monitor which will play current games at a steady framerate at 1440p. Personally, whilst an extra £500.....that's £500 money well spent imho

Things which also put a sour taste in people mouths...

Microsoft £429 - we will never ship an xbox one without kinect

Six months later

£329 without kinect

I personally don't see why I should have to create my five year old his own microsoft online account so he can have his own avatar on certain family games

bye bye xbox,,,,hello wii u lol
 
Last edited:
History has shown that new consoles on day of release are evenly matched with a £1,000 pc, and are set to last ten years

People keep saying this, but it's not actually true.

on release day they struggle to play 1080p games at a steady framerate eh? when did 1080p become the norm?

This is vague and doesn't mean much without context. 1080P and a steady frame rate are only describing 2 factors out of many.

This time round they are matched with a pc costing half as much

As above.

Probably down to technology, and they have put too much emphasis on things people don't want....ie, gimmicks which don't work properly

What sort of gimmicks apply to all?

Also, it's no secret that they needed to cut the production costs down, however I don't think that's actually had a negative impact on the final performance. The PS3 is considerably more powerful than the PS3 in terms of raw power.

You can build a £1,000 pc these days including a 27" 1440p monitor which will play current games at a steady framerate at 1440p. Personally, whilst an extra £500.....that's £500 money well spent imho

Sure, I'd prefer the PC, but it's not an extra £500. It's an extra £650 over a PS4, and £570 over an Xbox One (soon to be £670).

Things which also put a sour taste in people mouths...

Microsoft £429 - we will never ship an xbox one without kinect

Six months later

£329 without kinect

I personally don't see why I should have to create my five year old his own microsoft online account so he can have his own avatar on certain family games

These aren't really complaints about consoles though, and more a commentary on the mess Microsoft has got itself in to with the regular back pedalling and reneging that almost defines the Xbox One.

bye bye xbox,,,,hello wii u lol

The bottom line is going to where the games are that you want to play.
 
As one of the idiots who bought a PS4 I just want to know where the games are.

7 months down the line and nothing worth the £50+ or whatever they charge for games. Think there's like 5 games currently available lol.
 
Developers do need to recognise the PC market more, however games aren't ported. When people talk about "ports" they actually mean poorly developed PC builds, as you can't actually "port" a game. You have to compile a build specifically for each platform.

What happens is that they compile a build for PC, and then do the barebones with it, not ensuring it takes advantage of the options available for PC users.

You got it right though, they would make more money just by investing that little bit more time. The stuff they often neglect aren't really things that would take much development time to address.

Well the last point was my main point really, 'Port' seems to be the buzz word for an under developed PC games when comparing to console. But it would be nice for them to recognise the potential and put that extra effort in.

I think Watch_Dogs is the main culprit of this recently, much more could have been done with the game (alas I haven't completed the game) but you can see the extra which could have been done, or finished as the game runs like a dog in some parts.

A certain positive for PC gaming has been the growing Indie market I guess, lots of different and mixed style games being created.
 
I love my PC and spent a fortune on it, and love my PS4 aswell, 2 different types of gaming. I'm 100% sure though that I couldn't build a "gaming pc" from scratch for £300, never in a million years.

You can build a PC capable of gaming and more powerful than a PS4/xBone for ~£400. Taking into account the savings on games, you'll probably be quids in within 6 months :p


History has shown that new consoles on day of release are evenly matched with a £1,000 pc, and are set to last ten years

on release day they struggle to play 1080p games at a steady framerate eh? when did 1080p become the norm?

This time round they are matched with a pc costing half as much

Probably down to technology, and they have put too much emphasis on things people don't want....ie, gimmicks which don't work properly

You can build a £1,000 pc these days including a 27" 1440p monitor which will play current games at a steady framerate at 1440p. Personally, whilst an extra £500.....that's £500 money well spent imho

Sure, I'd prefer the PC, but it's not an extra £500. It's an extra £650 over a PS4, and £570 over an Xbox One (soon to be £670).

It's not exactly a fair comparison to include the cost of the monitor in the cost of the PC, unless you include the cost of your TV in the cost of the console... so add an extra £500 to the console price for your 46" HDTV and it becomes more accurate ;)

Whichever way you try and spin it, you can build a more powerful PC than the current gen consoles for a very slightly higher price, which if you buy more than 3-4 games a year, will be balanced out in 12 months.

That's not to say PC is better for everyone; some people prefer the ease of just turning the console on and playing the game, or prefer the exclusives.
 
Last edited:
7 months down the line and nothing worth the £50+ or whatever they charge for games. Think there's like 5 games currently available lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_4_games

Looks promising till you glance at the release dates (and sidestep the multi-platforms)

I'm not a tight wad but honestly you would have a hard time convincing me theres anything out there on any platform worth £50.. the closest thing to being worth the money was probably GW2.. and even then many of us picked it up for £30 or less.. and thats only if your actually into that genre to start with

Hate these "vs" things... its not about direct comparisons.. I like my PC but thats for a lot more than just gaming/leisure stuff, its a practical choice... consoles are great in their own way
 
Last edited:
You can build a PC capable of gaming and more powerful than a PS4/xBone for ~£400. Taking into account the savings on games, you'll probably be quids in within 6 months :p






It's not exactly a fair comparison to include the cost of the monitor in the cost of the PC, unless you include the cost of your TV in the cost of the console... so add an extra £500 to the console price for your 46" HDTV and it becomes more accurate ;)

Whilst you can't really build a comparable PC to a PS4 for £400, the large cost difference between games balances things out very quickly.
 
No, because largely PC gaming has little to do with Microsoft.
Other than make the operating system and api which runs >95% of PC games obviously... Goes without saying I suppose... ;) :p

Between 360, XO and Windows on PC I think MS has a fairly healthy investment in gaming tbh.
 
Last edited:
Other than make the operating system and api which runs >95% of PC games obviously... Goes without saying I suppose... ;) :p

Between 360, XO and Windows on PC I think MS has a fairly healthy investment in gaming tbh.

In gaming in general, sure yeah. Their involvement in PC though is next to nothing. The OS and API is a fair point, however they themselves don't bring in revenue with regards to gaming, in the way Microsoft Games Studios developed a lot of great popular games. They used to be invested, but now they're not so much invested, as just there.
 
I love my PC and spent a fortune on it, and love my PS4 aswell, 2 different types of gaming. I'm 100% sure though that I couldn't build a "gaming pc" from scratch for £300, never in a million years.


but if you spent 300 quid on your pc each console revision it would stay pretty damn top end.
 
Whilst you can't really build a comparable PC to a PS4 for £400, the large cost difference between games balances things out very quickly.

I think this is pretty close, and for the price difference of a few games there are quite a few decent upgrades you could add:

YOUR BASKET
1 x KFA2 GeForce GTX 750Ti OC "Low Profile" 2048MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card (75IGH8HX9KXZ) £99.95
1 x Intel Core i3-4130 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - Retail £85.99
1 x Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz Dual Channel Kit (HX313C9FK2/8) £61.99
1 x Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache - OEM (ST1000DM003) HDD £42.98
1 x SuperFlower Amazon 550W "80 Plus Bronze" Power Supply £38.99
1 x Asus H81M-K Intel H81 (Socket 1150) DDR3 Micro ATX Motherboard £37.99
1 x Antec One Gaming Case - Black £29.99
Total : £411.98 (includes shipping : £11.75).

 
Not sure I'd agree with that Tefal, £300 wouldn't last 8-10 years, top end requires that amount every 2 years on PC.

£300 would however keep your gaming experience pretty much at or above console graphics/performance levels for a good while.
 
The thing I like is better than the thing you like. FACT.

I swing my keyboard for 2d4 damage.

The guy who likes the other thing recoils in pain, screaming "mummy!" before adopting foetal position and sobbing intensely.

I raise my keyboard above my head and all the girls go wild!

I r the winrar of war!
 

This is the main issue, people try and compare like for like, not understanding that hardware works different in the console environment.

That, and you have no idea the sort of impact the CPU in the PS4, for example has compared to that i3. Also, where's your OS?

Additionally, the same quantity of RAM isn't really applicable either. The PS4 has 8GB of RAM, sure, but it's DDR5, and is directly accessible by the CPU and GPU, as well as working as a memory pool for them to use rather than the fixed 8GB and 2GB in the config you proposed. That's not even getting in to the memory bandwidth advantage of just DDR5.

That's not to say it wouldn't be a good PC to play games on, I just don't think it's a valid example, especially this early in the console life time, the console's hardware will be better used in a number of years compared to now. A lot of early PS3 games look awful compared to the latest ones out on PS3.
 
Have to agree with spoffle there, the hardware in consoles is put to much better use than it is in a PC for gaming. Whilst the gap has been closed between PC and console architecture, there's still PC games being released that struggle to even use 50% of that CPU you paid £400 for.

That system above would struggle in some newer games at 1080p without even maxing the settings.
 
Have to agree with spoffle there, the hardware in consoles is put to much better use than it is in a PC for gaming. Whilst the gap has been closed between PC and console architecture, there's still PC games being released that struggle to even use 50% of that CPU you paid £400 for.

That system above would struggle in some newer games at 1080p without even maxing the settings.

No it wouldn't, not on medium settings (which would more than match the consoles).
See this GTX750Ti review for a rough guide;
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/11
 
Back
Top Bottom