Discussion: besides "looks", currently pc gaming is the same as console

[Gdourado]

Hello, how are you? 

I was thinking about this today so decided to write here for discussion. 

 

Everyone knows and it is a fact that a current gaming pc can be way more powerful than a console, even the mid range refreshed consoles. 

 

We also know that a pc can be used to perform tasks a console can't like productivity and content creation. 

 

And finally we also know that a gaming pc in today's market to have better performance than a console it is two to four times more expensive. 

 

But all that is besides the point. 

What I am looking to discuss is how games are the same between consoles and pc and how you get nothing more in the way of the experience in pc. 

 

Current gen consoles are said to be underpowered. 

And on the cpu side of things, that can be true, since the jaguar cores on consoles are weak and don't offer much processing power compared to even the lower end current pc processors. 

 

And that leads me to my point. 

The cpu is responsible for achieving high framerates since it has to feed data to the gpu. 

And that is a big difference since pc games can be played from 60fps all the way to 240 depending on the hardware. 

 

But the cpu is also responsible for other things that can have impact on the actual game and the gaming experience. 

Things like npc population on an open world game, physics, objects, particles, enemy and npc ai, weather simulation, and much more. 

 

Now, since the consoles cpu is limited, it is safe to assume that multiplat games are developed in its core for consoles and then have options unlocked outside its core design to scale with pc hardware. 

 

Like it is easy to unlock the framerate of a game or allow the engine to render at higher resolution or draw the world further. 

 

But if a you want a game like the witcher 3 or far cry 5 for example to have more npcs, to have better Ai, to have differences that actually enhance, change or move the gaming experience forward, a developer would basically have to do extensive different core programing and almost do two different games, one for pc, and one for console. 

 

And of course that is not happening as it is not economically viable. 

 

So today we have basically the same game, same game mechanics, same world, same game play that has more eye candy on pc and can scale the looks based on the hardware. 

But the game is the same. 

On far cry 5, on ps4 you are still doing the same running and gunning as on the pc, with the same enemies, behaving the same and all that. 

 

For me this makes a great case for consoles as they are the lower denominator and games are developed for the lower denominator and allowed to scale just the looks for the higher end, and not the other way around. 

 

What are your thoughts on this? 

Would love to read them. 

 

Cheers 

[Indus Monk]

11 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

how games are the same between consoles and pc and how you get nothing more in the way of the experience in pc.

Really? Take a look at Skyrim. You can mod the hell out of the game and make even better than what it was. Also, ARMA 3 has plenty of modded servers that add things like new missions and Zombies.

 

I also believe that Consoles should start relying more on Vulkan API. Because Vulkan is very good at utilizing multi core performance, it can give games a massive boost in performance.

[AresKrieger]

So the advantages to PC besides looks and customization of settings are the moding communities and extreme game sales (and emulation but we'll avoid that topic)

 

Not everyone likes or uses mods but they can provide endless entertainment or fix issues left by developers, and though consoles have tried to incorporate mods for some games ultimately they failed, horribly.

 

Additionally as I stated sales on PC are ever present allowing for frugal pc gamers to get far more for there dollar on software and the number of games available is so much larger than any console library making their choices far greater.

 

As for you points about it being more similar than ever that has to do with consoles holding the industry back tech wise and these consoles designs being essentially crappy PCs with a Sony or MS label on them.

[Granular]

On PC, you have the option to buy games without DRM. You might even be able to buy them directly from the developer/publisher, while on console you're buying them from the console manufacturer, who also enforces DRM.

On PC you get mods if the community is into them. On console you might get them if the developer/publisher care enough to push Microsoft/Sony to include them, which is basically never.

Those are some meaningful differences in the game experience, but overall for me it's more about the experience of ownership than the experience of gaming, since with a PC, especially one running Linux, you are actually the owner, the boss of your device, while with a console you're like a lifetime renter who has to put up with Microsoft's and Sony's shit.

[D13H4RD]

Well, on a PC, it's not exactly the same.

 

A PC gaming experience is more customizable, and I'm not talking just about hardware.

 

You can individually tweak each graphics setting to fit what your rig is capable of and your preference of wanting more eye candy or as much FPS as possible. Some single-player games even allow mods to be installed, which either improves the core gaming experience or adds new content into the game, which can breathe new life into an old title. There's also mega sales that happen regularly, meaning you can save a lot on a new game purchase.

 

I generally don't like PC vs console arguments because at the end of the day, they're 2 different platforms with some key benefits and drawbacks. But objectively, I feel that the PC is better not just due to beefier hardware but also the choice and customization factor.

 

[Agonizel]

I understand what you're saying, basically: consoles are bottle-necking the PC gaming experience.
By consoles you mean Xbox and PS4. Because nintendo is on a whole different route than those two. 
 

I think consoles should focus back on couch-coop multiplayer games like the LOTR: Return of the Kings on PS2. Instead of offering a watered-down version of PC gaming, offer something different: Something PC gaming cannot provide (other than the equality between systems as opposed to the heterogeneity of PC systems).

It would result in 2 things:
1. There would be a higher incentive to buy those consoles
2. Developers could work on games that make full use a of a PC's ressources

 

[Gdourado]

The game price is a valid argument, but it also has a flipside.

Console games can also be had cheaper on sites like Amazon and other online stores and are physical.

How many people purchase a single-player game on steam, plays trough the story or campaign for 6 to 12 hours and then never touches the game again? 

On Stam, you are stuck with the game and the money is out. 

On consoles, you can get a game, play the campaign and then sell it used for little loss. 

 

Also, what I usually see mentioned is that pc has all those menus for graphics options. 

And it's true you can maximize a game with a beast pc. 

And it can make difference when you are standing still and looking at the scenery. 

There might be more foliage, bigger draw distance, better textures. 

But then when you are controller in hand, trying to shoot down enemies and dodging fire, it is basically the same game. 

 

Also, because the limits of LCD technology and how LCD monitors and TVs handle motion, those sharper pc textures end up not making a difference when the game is in motion. 

 

So my point is that pc gives options to tweak and yes, framerate can make a big difference depending on the type of game and the sensitivity of the gamer, but outside that, today games are the same on a 200 euro console or a 1000 euro pc. 

 

[grimreeper132]

depends on the game, some games sure they feel better on the console, also consoles are much easier to use for multipersion split screen gaming. That being said a PC experience can be way better than a console if you do it right, for example elite dangerous, I play that on PC and have recently went from a keyboard and mouse to a keyoard and joystick (you need too many buttons for a keyboard) and the joystick has made the game amazing, I don't think I could got back to keyboard and mouse for it anymore, that being said I wouldn't even try it on console and/or controller, as there is about 40/50 functions you need where a controller has about 20 so you would need to double up everything at least once which is just not great. 

 

Also I accept  you can now mod skyrim on Xbox and PS but only barely for example my skyrim has about 171 mods loaded and running when I play it and I get a very playable frame rate still (most of the time few issues when for some reason 50 wolves spawn and attack you, that happened once naturally, somehow.) 

 

Console is better in terms of ease of use, but as soon as you want to do anything, literally anything else as well then they become shit. Price wise, you can get a last gen PC with similar preformance for about the same price as a console as well, the GPU price spike is only for this gen of GPUs not last gens so if you get them you can get good preofmance alot cheaper and so get a gaming rig with the same preformance for about the same if not cheaper. And second hand as long as you make sure it all works looks fine, isn't mined on and does small of air fresher (bought one PC like that once it actually made me want to throw up, and took months to fix the smell) it isn't that risky, as PC components are very hard to kill.

[Sauron]

I strongly disagree that the game library overlaps. While most console games are also available on pcs (and if not, there's always at least something in the same genre for pc), the opposite is definitely not true. Aside from the massive catalogue of older games you can access on a modern machine (unlike a console), there are also entire genres that simply don't work on consoles, like RTS and MOBA games, because of the input method. FPS games also play terribly on a controller, despite being technically available for consoles, and every attempt to make a shooter more console friendly has resulted in a worse gameplay experience. Not to mention mods (although sadly mod friendly games are a dieing breed).

 

On the flip side, there are games that work better on a console, mainly party games and anything where you would want to play split screen with friends on the couch. That's why, in my opinion, nintendo offers a better console experience at this time, whereas the other two try and fail to mimic the good parts of the pc experience.

1 hour ago, Granular said:

On PC, you have the option to buy games without DRM. You might even be able to buy them directly from the developer/publisher, while on console you're buying them from the console manufacturer, who also enforces DRM.

Good point, although sadly not all games give you this option.

1 hour ago, Gdourado said:

The game price is a valid argument, but it also has a flipside.

Console games can also be had cheaper on sites like Amazon and other online stores and are physical.

How many people purchase a single-player game on steam, plays trough the story or campaign for 6 to 12 hours and then never touches the game again? 

On Stam, you are stuck with the game and the money is out. 

On consoles, you can get a game, play the campaign and then sell it used for little loss. 

Steam sales often offer far bigger discounts than what you'd get on amazon or even from a used copy. On top of that, personally I wouldn't sell my games - even if I don't plan on playing them again. They've been a part of my life, even if just for 12 hours, and unless they were completely broken or gave me no enjoyment whatsoever I wouldn't want to get rid of them.

1 hour ago, Gdourado said:

And it can make difference when you are standing still and looking at the scenery. 

There might be more foliage, bigger draw distance, better textures. 

But then when you are controller in hand, trying to shoot down enemies and dodging fire, it is basically the same game. 

Unless you also want to get rid of that maddening motion blur, or you want to play at a higher framerate than what the overlords over at sony deemed adequate, or you're playing a game where there isn't a lot of action and the beautiful scenery is a big part of the experience. It might be all the same to you, that doesn't make it the same for everyone...

1 hour ago, Gdourado said:

Also, because the limits of LCD technology and how LCD monitors and TVs handle motion, those sharper pc textures end up not making a difference when the game is in motion. 

Only if you play with that terrible motion blur and fxaa on. I can spot a muddy texture from a mile away on any of my monitors, especially at 4k. That's not the end of the world, but it's nice to at least have some agency in how good it looks.

1 hour ago, Gdourado said:

So my point is that pc gives options to tweak and yes, framerate can make a big difference depending on the type of game and the sensitivity of the gamer, but outside that

Yeah, outside of literally every major difference there is no difference. If you compare a cactus and a rose, outside of the size, environment, smell, watering requirements and lifespan they are the same thing.

[redsquirrel0249]

PCs also have mods, VR capability, variable control schemes, adjustable FOV, console commands, and sometimes different DLC options. So the core gaming experience can definitely change.

[Gdourado]

I know this is mostly a pc centric forum and people tend to defend their preferences, but I think my point is being missed somewhat. 

 

I see all over people bashing the ps4 pro and saying it is not worth it over a base ps4 for the price premium because all it does is bump the resolution on some games or add a higher framerate mode on other games. 

But the game is the same and the core gaming experience is the same. 

 

Then how about a pc? 

It is the same case. 

It enables higher framerates, more resolution, more visual tweaks and effects, but the game is still the same. 

At the end of the day, and I say this again, that my reasoning only applies to using a pc only for gaming. 

You are paying 3 to 4 times more for a machine that is like a Ps4 pro 4.0.

It enables your games to be played at higher framerates, with better graphics. 

But then you have to deal with windows, drivers, configurations, tweaks, security flaws and vulnerability patches to play the same games. 

 

What I am saying is that most mass market games on pc are multiplats. They are the same games as played on consoles. 

There are no big AAA pc exclusives. 

The games on pc are not using the extra power to evolve the game play. To have better ai, more complex and living worlds, better interactions, nothing. 

 

There isn't a Crysis in years. Nothing to really push the pc and have it be really worth it over a console. 

 

And I fear that will also happen next gen. 

Consoles will probably get a ryzen based cpu and a Navi gpu but at launch they will already be behind pcs. 

 

But games will be developed with consoles in mind and the pc will continue to be the machine to enable more visual options and tweaks, but always the same game play. 

[D13H4RD]

I think @Sauron nailed it.

 

I really personally feel that the Switch manages to make the best of what it has and embraces being a console by being a very good couch gaming companion and also doubles as a great mobile gaming device. 

 

Don't get me wrong, the other 2 are solid consoles but they also feel a little like gaming PCs at times. 

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, Gdourado said:

The games on pc are not using the extra power to evolve the game play. To have better ai, more complex and living worlds, better interactions, nothing. 

Here's a small rebuttal. 

 

Some games actually give you the option to adjust the density and variety of various objects and assets in the game world. A good example is GTA V. 

 

The core programming is the same on all platforms for simplification. 

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

I see all over people bashing the ps4 pro and saying it is not worth it over a base ps4 for the price premium because all it does is bump the resolution on some games or add a higher framerate mode on other games. 

But the game is the same and the core gaming experience is the same. 

 

Then how about a pc? 

It is the same case. 

No it's not, because the ps4 pro is just a ps4 with better preset graphics. You don't get any tweaking, any improvement in the input method, no different games, no retrocompatibility with 20 year old gems, no proper modding.

5 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

What I am saying is that most mass market games on pc are multiplats.

League of Legends begs to differ - and that's just the most prominent of a bunch of competitive games that either are not available or play like garbage on consoles. Recently, the vast majority of the time I spend playing videogames is spent on heroes of the storm, which is not available on any console. Stop trying to generalize a concept that is only somewhat true for a part of the market.

10 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

There are no big AAA pc exclusives. 

There are hundreds of great, older AAA games that were never ported to modern consoles but are still perfectly playable on pc. And once again - not everyone plays the same sort of games, and not every popular game is a so-called "AAA".

13 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

There isn't a Crysis in years. Nothing to really push the pc and have it be really worth it over a console.

 

If you play the game at 4k or 120+fps you can bet your buttocks that it will push a good pc's hardware to its limits and look or play significantly better in exchange.

15 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

And I fear that will also happen next gen. 

Consoles will probably get a ryzen based cpu and a Navi gpu but at launch they will already be behind pcs. 

 

But games will be developed with consoles in mind and the pc will continue to be the machine to enable more visual options and tweaks, but always the same game play. 

I know I already said it 3 times, but let me reiterate - not every game is the same and not every game (or even genre) is suitable for consoles and some games are developed with a pc in mind.

[Kamjam21xx]

I love pc gaming, im dumping many thousands in my new rig... but... you cant deny consoles get some awesome classics like MAG, or Halo which was stolen away from us, metal gear solid, etc. 

 

They are different, but no worth arguing about.

 

I just buy both.

[cowpker4life]

Pc tends to have servers up longer a bigger player base. Almost every fps is a joke to play with a controller and most consoles fps have aim assist or something. Not saying I support pirating but easier on pc. Humble bundle or steam will give you free game codes now and then. Being able to play games game cube and ps2 or older all way up to the newest releases along with being able to mod games or use cheat engine to fly around and have a fun time. High texture mods for older games do wonders already helps they support 1080p+ and normally some type of aa. AAA titles use to mean something but that has been dropping off for awhile. There is also a good chunk of free fps games for pc along with mmos are only for pc but eso and it will crash all the time or have 10fps or lower most the time when playing for console. More key binding is nice as well. Also if you don't want to pay for a game that's from a ps2 game boy or psp you can just emulate and play for free. 

Edit 

Few 4 ago I built a pc for $400 or so. Fx 8320, a mix 970 gaming 16gb ram and a gtx 780 3gb 1tb hdd w7 some cheap crappy psu and a case. Could do most games high or max 60fps 1080p. Just not ac4. 

[Kamjam21xx]

THIS THREAD IS EXTREMELY RELATIVE 

[Eaglerino]

We seem to be heading that way. You can't buy a $400 PC that is as capable as an Xbox One X. All they need to do is add official support for keyboard and mouse and get rid of the crappy Xbox live payment and it'd be hard to convince any of my friends to get a PC anymore

[Phentos]

I'm a PC gamer through and through, but there's no denying that console exclusives can provide great experiences that PC usually never gets (Sony).

 

I bought a PS4 Slim (could not afford Pro) over the holidays and I love it. Horizon Zero Dawn was one of the best games I've played in recent memory. Adjusting to 30 FPS was not as daunting of a prospect as PCMR folks say it is... but that is probably due to the fact that I still have a 60hz monitor and I usually use Vsync in my games, except in PUBG for obvious reasons.

 

I hope the next gen consoles actually do have Zen/Vega-based APUs rather than the weaksauce Jaguar cores that they have now. That is pretty much the only hindrance that consoles have atm - weak CPU performance.

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 5/6/2018 at 3:53 AM, AresKrieger said:

As for you points about it being more similar than ever that has to do with consoles holding the industry back tech wise and these consoles designs being essentially crappy PCs with a Sony or MS label on them.

If this is that design decisions are held back because of the tech inside consoles isn't up to snuff, then in some cases, sure, I would agree.

 

In most cases, I won't though. And in fact, I would argue that modern game development has a lot to thank consoles for as a lot of the advanced techniques we're seeing originated from trying to overcome said hardware limitations. I feel like back then if the developer did not have prior experience with limiting hardware, they'd think Moore's Law take care of any performance issues they would've come across. And this is why Crysis continues to perform poorly even on modern hardware.

 

Some cases of issues with the game tech in general could be the result of other poor design decisions. People like to think FFXIV was held back by the PS3, which I don't really believe considering the PS3 hosted Skyrim and GTA V. Maybe it was more likely from FFXIV being built on top of FFXI, because the initial direction of game development was basically FFXI, just better looking.

[Taja]

For me, pc is way better for a simples reason: kb + m and personalization.

 

EVERY GAME I ever wanted to play is better played with kb+m. Best menu navigation, aim, control in general... It is just so much better.

 

Also, putting a game on a SSD and having insane fast loading times... That has no price. Choosing the settings to get high fps? Amazing. You can even get a fancy monitor to suit your particular needs.

 

And that is more subjective, but I like to have the immersion a pc gives. You are playing right in front of a monitor, the immersion is way superior.

[MeDownYou]

This argument is interesting, but I think tablets and phones can actually play alot of these games with rereleases if they decided to do so as well. When it comes down to it consoles ARE PCs. It's like PCs at gaming Cafe's are marketed as a certain build. The difference is the granular control on the PC side. If I wanna run my game at low setting and 180 for sure I can do that. If I want ultra and high res, sure I can do that. The argument has always been a closed ecosystem vs an open one and that isn't changing.

[redsquirrel0249]

On 5/6/2018 at 9:17 AM, Gdourado said:

There are no big AAA pc exclusives.

CS:GO, League of Legends, Dota 2, TF2, Starcraft, etc...

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, redsquirrel0249 said:

CS:GO, League of Legends, Dota 2, TF2, Starcraft, etc...

Those are not Triple A titles, or not released yet.

 

I have run Forza 7 back to back on my Xbox One X and a 980ti equiped HTPC. Takes a sharp eye to notice any differences. Same with AC Origins. 

[redsquirrel0249]

@App4that Define AAA. I define it as having a player base of hundreds of thousands, being known by everyone, and having a large dev team. Maybe starcraft doesn't quite fit that bill, but it sure was popular enough to practically fill the qualifications for one.