78
Hello, PC gaming here: Are the consoles OK?
(www.pcgamer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
78 points (87.5% liked)
Gaming
20085 readers
49 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I still don't understand why would I want a PS5 when I have a PC
I could see the appeal of consoles back in the day, when they were weaker specs but much cheaper and the games just worked right out of the box. But nowadays it seems like they're just as expensive, still not as good for specs and the games are just as bug-riddled as PC games half the time. And Sony has been releasing all their big hits on PC anyway so yeah really no reason for me to get a PS5 that I can see.
No they aren’t ‘as expensive’, LTT did a video a while back where they tried to build a PC that could beat a PS5 for a similar price. They had to buy used parts to match the price and the PC did not include a controller ($69). If you’re going to use used parts, then also compare it to the price of a used PS5.
Sure, if you want to play old-ass games, get a PC.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Gaming PC's are expensive and a luxury! It makes sense economically. With consoles there's an incentive to sell hardware cheap to get people into the ecosystem. With the exception of the steamdeck, there's no such incentive for PC's: if the hardware is worth x amount, you can bet your ass you'll have to pay at least that. Yeah games are generally cheaper on PC, but not by much, and the barrier to entry is much lower for consoles. Hell, the PC I just built from used parts and Amazon deals cost me $800 (not including accessories), and while the processor and ram is almost certainly better than the ps5's, the graphics are about on par, if anything slightly worse. You can find used ps5's for less than $400. Is there really a used PC out there that can touch that?
I think the offsetting cost factor basis is that a PC is a computer that can be used for more than gaming and the console is pretty much useless after 3-5 years (considering the PS4 @ 2013, PS4 Pro @ 2016, and the PS5 @ 2020, and how PS4 Pros are beginning to struggle today, and OG PS4's being obsolete). Are PC's more expensive upfront now? Sure. But you also don't have to re-purchase your games each generation at the whim of the publisher, like you're likely going to end up doing with Sony and Nintendo, with the added benefit of being able to use it for other projects after its contemporary gaming lifespan.
Basically, if you built a PC in 2013 you're probably still able to use it today as a server or hobby project PC (digital art, music, etc). PC's were also cheaper back then before NVIDIA made GPU's cost $1,000. Good luck re-using a console.
I see you don't replay games, so why even own a console if you only play a game once?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. If I don’t play a game multiple times I shouldn’t play it at all?
Because my pc uses 4-5 times the power to run the same ps4-era game. (Especially nice when it’s hot in summer)
So I play it on my ps5, which offers me quick resume as well.
I love pc gaming, been building pc’s for over a decade at this point, but I do also see the advantages my ps5 has over my pc.
Could I build a more efficient and quiet pc, attach it to my tv and use that? Probably, and it’d be quite good with steamOS on it, but it’d be finicky to get sleep/resume working on it, and it’d probably cost me more.
just wait till arm becomes mainstream
ARM isn't more efficient than x86 at that scale. Below 15W or so, it is, but not scaled up. I think there are other good reasons for it--like having more than three companies that can produce them--but not that.
Til
And then there are people like me who buy all the consoles just to have them and barely use them all and mainly game on the PC.
Same, if only to keep fulfilling a childhood commitment to myself of owning all consoles after seeing some friends of mine having a Sega AND a Nintendo.
Couch gaming.
I'm a technical person and I've tried a lot of different methods to do couch gaming with a PC. From having some sort of lap tray to various wireless mice and keyboard solutions. I've currently landed on having my gaming desktop just stream with Steam Link to my living room. As long as I'm selective about which games I want to play, I can usually get a good experience. But I still have at least 60% of my steam library that isn't a good experience doing that.
Having a dedicated piece of hardware with a custom OS that is designed around a controller is a huge difference maker. Plus you add in how ridiculously expensive it is to get either a USB external optical drive or internal SATA drive to watch DVDs and Blu-Rays. Heck, even just watching Netflix or YouTube in the living room is easier on PS5 than a media PC for the average user.
There's a reason Valve tried to make the Steam Machine.
Exclusives, simplicity, ease of use. I had a gaming PC, but switched to the PS5 only because I realized I've been using my PC like a PS5. I only play like fifa and gta now since most new games don't even excite me anymore.
I don’t understand why I would buy a PC when I can get a PS5.
It has a library going back 30+ years.
It is useful for other things.
I don’t play old games. I don’t even play PS4 games on my PS5.
I have no other use for a desktop PC.
You're not going to play any of your PS5 games in 5-10 years? You're happy with some of your games aging out of your library?
You do you, but you might be an outlier.
No, I only ever play through a game once. After I finish the main campaign I’ll never touch it again.
Why would I play a game I already played when I could play a new game instead?
Roguelikes.
Roguelites.
Chess.
Deck builders.
More broadly, games with different narrative choices (eg: Witcher 2 has two mutually exclusive middle acts).
And also more broadly, games with different mechanical choices (eg: many RPGs).
There's also games where the process itself is fun (eg: Tetris).
Also, as many humans have imperfect memory, after enough time has passed a game may feel fresh playing it again. It may also land differently playing it at a new stage in life.
I hâte to agree with the other person here, but I'm a big roguelike fan and I rarely dust-off one that I have played before. I go through a period where I play a game quasi-exclusively until I burn out, then I will probably never touch it again.
I don't think that's especially common for roguelikes. I played a lot of crawl: stone soup and it was pretty common for folks to go for a win with every species, god, and class.
I would still do that, to an extent. But not if I've stopped playing that game for months.
Out of curiosity, what about games that update? Crawl gets a new release like every six months where they often make big changes. New gods, species, other changes (like when they removed food, or added shapeshifting talismans)
Hmmmm. Not sure I've been in that situation too often. But honestly, as a young parent, my gaming time is very limited. Even if there is an important update to a game I've played in the past, chances are I've got my eyes on another game I've been waiting to play instead.
Not my cup of tea.
I kinda like it that it makes my decisions in the game more impactful. If you're going to go back and play the other option anyway, then it kind of makes the decision meaningless.
Outlier 100%
Sounds like what you enjoy are shallow, linear story games. To each their own, of course. Glad you're happy with what PS5 offers you in that regard. But the industry has a lot more to offer than that.
How are story games shallow? They are much deeper than the next generic multiplayer shooter. I happen to like stories in all forms, books, movies, series and video games. Video games are unique in that they allow you to be part of a story. For me the story is the single most important thing of a game. Often I simply play games on easy or story mode, mainly to keep up the pacing of the story.
You misread that. Sounds like you are being defensive.
They are saying the person likes the ones that ARE shallow.
I never said story games are shallow. But if the games you like are ones where you can feel like you've experienced all the game and the story has to offer in a single playthrough then they are, by definition, shallow. Even a great movie is worth watching multiple times of its story has any appreciable depth. Video games, even more so since there should be more to the story to experience.
That sounds more like a you problem.
I guess it's possible you are correct and like the bulk of people who have ever studied film, literature, and art more generally are wrong. That seems unlikely. More plausible is that it's common for people to experience a given work multiple times and get different things out of it.
That's not even accounting for the "Reading Lear as an old man hits differently than reading it when I was a teenager" factor. That is, who you are changes over time and that affects how you experience art.
For self-hosting / drawing / video editing or other useful things that you can do with a PC? You can also play FPS with keyboard & mouse
For self-hosting I have several Linux and *BSD machines, but that’s server-grade hardare, not gaming hardware. None of those machines even has a GPU.
Drawing I do on my iPad Pro, for everything else I have a MacBook Pro. If I got a desktop PC it would only be used for games, I have no real need for non-server PC hardware.
I still don't understand why would I give Apple my money when there are alternatives
Because they have the best hardware and the best desktop OS. Nothing comes close.
The 79,900 games available on steam vs 7,200 on PS 4/5.
99.999% of the games on Steam are low budget crap. On PSN it’s only like 98%
That math doesn't work out
I'm not sure why I'd want a PS5 when there are zero games that interest me on it, and most of PC games I do want have very modest requirements. A Steam Deck is overkill for most of them.
We obviously like different kinds of games. A large part of the games that interest me are PS5 exclusives, at least at launch.