Settle it: Does PC gaming beat all other gaming?


Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2014
I've heard it too many times before: Yea, but have you played it on PC??? I get that there are ways PC gaming beats consoles but the contrary is also true. Do you feel PC gaming is a niche market or does it stand the test of time?
It stands the test of time. Why? I've been playing PC games since 1997-8. Online, no less. And the computer consoles(or towers in this case) are much more easily modifiable then all those "already built" component machines that get shipped off a line. With little to no upgrade room left, I'd say PC outraces the "Big Three" in the Console wars (Xbox, Sony, Nintendo) and is probably why it's never mentioned. I'd guarantee there's a wider margin of PC game users than the other three combined. Not everyone can afford the consoles, the games, the and connections/accessories. Computer? You just need internet and a basic setup powerful enough to render graphics and you're good to go.
I never think of PC as a competitor to consoles.
I guess this is because I started gaming on PC around '95 or '96 with games like Sim Tower and it took a long time (and many games in-between, like Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Battle Realms, Operation Flashpoint, CounterStrike, Delta Force, etc...) for consoles and PC to have some of the same games.
Even now that you can get Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, Call of Duty and most of the major franchises on consoles or PC, I still think gaming on a computer has lots of different things to offer. For one, take a quick glimpse at Steam and everywhere you'll see tons of games you can't get for consoles. Heck, there's entire genres that are hard to port to consoles, if they even, like RTS (the perfect example: StarCraft 64, anyone?) and simulation games.

I've always seen PC and consoles are mutually complementary, from genres as described above, and even from the issue (that the Wii U has changed) of "a family member wants the computer, I'll go over to the TV" and vice versa, and even the concept of playing in the living room on my 42" TV vs gaming on my studio with my 14" or 20" (or more recently 32" ;):D) monitor, from up close.
The Steam machines and for a longer while now, the possibility of using a console controller has somewhat bridged the gap and I think also contributed to many people seeing them as competition rather than complements, but it's not going to change for me. A Steam machine will still be more expensive, upgradeable, able and comfortable to support other games and undesirable as a platform for certain games. I'll still make it a priority to have one and I'll still make it a priority to have at elast one console from the generation that's in vigor at the time (I have the Wii U now, though I still want a PS4 and even an Xbox One).

That's my opinion on computer gaming...
Tablets are getting better every year for gaming and with nvidia tablets one can download PC games and play on their nvidia tablet with a controller and in three years time the tablets will have the same or better specs than the Ps4/Xboxone.

The Apple Store and Google Play have PC games in them such as strategy/fps/war gaming, they have ported half-life for Andriod on nvidia tablets and bio-shock for iOS tablets and both get independent software The PC does not get.
The thing that really matters when deciding on a system is the console exclusives. PC has almost everything, and can usually run everything nicer, but there are some games you can't buy for your gaming rig. Halo for Xbox, Killzone for PlayStation, and Mario for Nintendo consoles (just a few examples). It all comes down to one simple question: How much do you want to play a certain console exclusive?
Don't forget Emulators as well. Unless you're talking PS3 ERA+, anything PS2-below is emulatable, and free. Especially on a computer. Oh and PC has the HALO series. Maybe not Killzone and Mario, but Halo. I remember playing the original HALO CE for PC and being overran with kids and people yelling obscenities in spanish half of the time.

So, the real question is; is it emulatable? If not, then yeah, you end up paying for console exclusive games. Like the Zelda franchise for the WII (something that could not be done without their proprietary software.)
@Shimus Can you recommend emulators? Many years ago I wanted to try them, but they were a chore to set up and the one I got working (N64) was terrible... the screen would go black intermittently (like in a flashing motion), had poor FPS, etc...
So even though it's something I would definitely like, I never tried again because of that.
I have no issue recommending emulators to use, and which sites to go. I'll just have to dredge up my old habits and figure out if the sites are still running. I'm sure I can locate them, it'll just take some time.

Though, for names I'll recommend these, and just google a guide from there to help you set them up. I highly suggest these ones; others outside of this list I've never personally used.

1. NES - NESticle, Jnes, (first two I tried and like, never tried the third options) NEStopia

2. SNES - ZSNES, SNES9x. ( I recommend Zsnes, easy to setup and use, but SNES9x has better compatibility in some games).

3. PS1/PS2: Epsxe, PCSX for PS1, PS2: PCSX2 (used all three, they're all decent for some games, need to toggle between sometimes as some games have trouble running on one or the other.

4. N64: mupen64plus, Project 64(what I used), 1964.

5. WII/GAMECUBE: DOLPHIN, and it runs almost flawlessly due to the emulator basically being so close in nature between the WII and Gamecube's infrastructure. Makes it solid. Tales of Symphonia, anyone? Or perhaps some Resident:Evil 4. Now on the fly!
The PC is the way to go with gaming, but as we know home consoles are popular and it's a shame we will never see some of the most recent games on the PC. Maybe in time and with great emulator we will.

But the PC is the most economical and convenient way to go. It is a multi purpose machine, and you can always upgrade parts to play a resource hogging game. Unlike a console where you have to buy the whole unit to play games. Then in a few years, we have to buy a new console to play more recent titles. With the PC we can always play older games, and upgrade parts to play the most recent. If you can't buy more ram, then drop the frame rate of the game to be able to play it at full speed.
I'm with Josh on this one. Scrapping the need to buy a whole NEW console every couple years and rather just keep updating a system with parts (PC) is probably why PC gaming is superior. It's just shameful that some of these exclusive-for-consoles will never get a port to the PC, such an UNTAPPED and HUGE market for such. I'd easily say there's probably more people "Online" (On PC) then all three next gen consoles, combined. That's a pretty HUGE market, if you ask me.
I have never really played on a PC before, but I just don't think that it would be the best. I mean first off, it would take some time to learn the controls, and then what could be so different to make it better? I like just sitting down and playing games online on my Xbox. I think that they work perfectly well on there.
I'm with Josh on this one. Scrapping the need to buy a whole NEW console every couple years and rather just keep updating a system with parts (PC) is probably why PC gaming is superior. It's just shameful that some of these exclusive-for-consoles will never get a port to the PC, such an UNTAPPED and HUGE market for such. I'd easily say there's probably more people "Online" (On PC) then all three next gen consoles, combined. That's a pretty HUGE market, if you ask me.

This also reminds me of another forum that asked about home console that are actually slowing the progress of ever evolving games. Most game makers are trying to push the limits on video games but are limited by the popular consoles. On the PC it is the opposite. Game makers will push the boundaries and in the back of their minds they will say "well the PC needs to be upgraded if the want to see this game in full gory". If they were making it for an obsolete console, that though is nonexistent.
I wholeheartedly disagree about PC being the economical way.
The PS4 and Xbox One both cost around the equivalent to $455 USD, the Wii U about $394, and the dollar's on the rise, it was more a few months ago and I'll more than likely go up in price around $30-40 USD in the coming weeks.
A PC that you can realistically play current games on at least mid settings on (I'm talking i5, 4GB RAM, 1GB video or probably higher specs than that) goes easily around $970 USD. Mine has a 6-core processor, 8GB RAM, 1GB video. It cost me $1,200 in Las Vegas, April 2011. Today it would go for around the same price here, 4 years and 3 months later. And that was the tower alone, you can then add monitor, mouse, keyboard and anything else you want.
A decent mouse and keyboard go for the same a console controller. I don't use a gaming mouse or keyboard, because those go for about 3-4 times what a controller costs, each.
And last, but not least, this PC can take upgrades, but how long until my motherboard isn't compatible with the newer specs coming out? Last console generation lasted about 8 years, I've had this PC for half that time, and it may still hold up some more years, but the capacity for upgrades ends, as the console cycle did. I do have to shell out an extra $230 USD or so for a new video card, though.

To me, PC gaming is premium gaming. You can get the best graphics, FPS, etc... but you have to pay for it.
Are prices in the US really that much lower that PC is much more viable than consoles? I'm skeptic, I already mentioned my specs and how I bought mine in Las Vegas...
It also sounds to me like you were pre-buying your systems? It's not really hard to make your own, you know. It's really just screw socket screw A into open hole B for most of the mounting. Hooking up is a cinch too, if you have google open on another smartphone/device - read computer making for dummies. It's actually quite handy. I've built all my PC's and they've ALWAYS been under the cost of a new system (under 500) for my current I4 with 8gb ram and 2gb video. Cost me 375? I think. Just snipe parts deals off new-egg and assemble it yourself (or other computer sites for parts, for that matter)

PC is actually cheaper and easier to upgrade in the long run. I find that I spend more on different consoles themselves, the games, and the different accessories for each (controllers, remotes, whatever)
Actually, no. That's not because of the hardware though but more to do with the PC gaming scene itself. Hardcore PC gamers tend to limit themselves to a few select genres, such as the FPS, RTS, MMORPGs and MOBAs. Many successful console games that get ported over to PC, hardly ever get the audience they deserve. Therefore, PC gaming only seems to truly cater to a few niches while the wider spectrum of game genres is ignored.
Not everyone falls into that category. I know plenty of people who play other games like racing games or sports game like FIFA online as well. It's not that they ignore them; just that if MMOs were more prevalent on consoles I guarantee you'd have a run for your money against PC gamers. Puzzle games as well abound on PC, and games you couldn't even get on a console. Like the old game Acrophobia. That was a boss game.

PC GAMING just gets that much attention on those genres of games, and coverage in news, so everyone assumes PC just caters to the select few. In reality there are tons of legit game companies out there and I've played nearly every genre of game under the sun at least once or twice. And this wouldn't be capable unless on a PC either; I'd need all three major chain of consoles to be able to do the range of things one system can. This to me means PC gaming is ahead of console gaming, but not because of playerbase or genres of games - simply the ability in hardware to do whatever, whenever.

Latest posts

Latest threads