Games on PC vs. Games on consoles.?

Question

Why do video games have to be on consoles?

Sure back then they couldn't put it on a computer, but now that they can, why not?

I always thought gaming on the computer was cheaper and more convenient. Just an all-in-one pack.

Graphic cards might cost money, but in the end it's a better price. There are also more keys to put all your controls on. Also, no cables or cords or anything like that. The only console that I actually think has games that aren't compatible with a computer is the Wii. The only reason for that, is I think computer monitors are too small to play something like Mario Kart on, but I'm sure they could make a big monitor for those games.

People already made a steering wheel for the computer.

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

because the graphics are no where near as good - it is slower and the consoles have easy to use controllers. plus you can sit down on a sofa and play your console through the tv

Answer 2

Video games were on computer before consoles existed. These companies spend all their money to make a convenient little box that which has a straight to the point operating system and just enough process power and memory to run the games because there is no background programs. Why? So they can make deals with developers to put there games only on their console. It's all about console wars. If it were just computers there would be no competition. That means developers would make less money. With consoles there is competition. With competition comes money. So really its all about money. The console makers and the developers want all the money they can get. I truly wish they would just make all games for pc. I would be alot happier.

Answer 3

If the graphics on a PC can match today's consoles, then the owner of that baby paid a fortune, 1500-2000, and consoles offer 1-4 player with no internet, and the PC requires internet for just 2 to play together.

In a nutshell, try to get both.:]

Answer 4

PC Graphics are the best and outperform Consoles. The thing is that consoles are cheaper and because they basically have the same specifications, mass production allows it to be cheaper. Computer do offer the all in one package. Consoles offer unique game control for some types of games such as sports or action, while PC offers superiority in strategy games and First Person Shooters.  

Answer 5

With a console game you put in the disk and that's it, no installation no code to register product, also a console will last about five yrs with developers working to get the most out of the hardware, while PC's have to be upgraded, consoles are simply a lot less hassle.

Answer 6

Go make about 3 or 4 thousand dollars and you too can join the club of people who think video games are better on PC's are are willing to spend any sum to prove it.

Right now there is a collection of about 5 first person shooters that are exclusive to PC, and that use Direct X 10 to actually do things that neither Direct X 9 nor the RSX can do. In fact I can only think of two of them right now, Crysis and Counter Strike, and one of the top 5 is being ported to ps3 soon.

PC's around the year 2000 benefitted from the fact that the console generation was aging badly, and that all console games were still in standard 480i or 480p at best, and that console games had taken a while to get off the ground with online play.

That was then, this is now. Now the only hardware advantage pc's have is the high-8000-series Nvidia video cards, and some of the 9000 series. The PS3 runs on the Cell Broadband Engine which for running 3D games is better than any quad-core pc you'll find. The Cell also has the ability to act as a graphics co-processor. The PS3's Nvidia RSX chip was unequalled in PC's before the GeForce 8000's were released, and runs at about the level of a GeForce 8500. With the Cell's ability to co-process graphics, nobody can really be sure just how good the ps3's graphics can get.

  PS3 has one more serious advantage in running 3d games: memory bandwidth. The ps3 has only 256mb of system RAM, but it is XDDRAM which runs at a blistering 3.2 gHz to match the Cell's clock rate. This is not the kind of thing you see in pc's because even gaming pc's are made for multi-tasking, installing Windows Vista, etc. etc. first, and games second. You don't need a lot of RAM to run a 3d game engine, it's irrelevant. The engine takes one frame, displays it, crunches the data to get the next frame, then forgets the first frame, displays the second frame, and so on. No need for memory, it's speed that matters.

The xbox360, though much cheaper and lower-tech than the ps3, is still a triple-core machine with a respectable ATI graphics chip. It can only handle Direct X 9, yet the vast majority of pc games including shooters are still ported to the xbox. As earlier my point about not very many games actually doing anything with DX10.

There is two kinds of games that I think pc's are better for, and they're in fact the two genres that pc still dominates: Role-playing games and real-time strategy. These are the kind of games that do need multi-tasking, and often they do need system RAM, and are often easier to play with a keyboard than without.

I think shooters are going to be dead in the water on pc for the next 2 or 3 years, simply because the ps3 is so good it will be able to keep up with Direct X 10 PC games for a good long while. Especially because of blu-ray making possible 50gb games on one disc. The vast majority of shooters are now sold for consoles. Some pc shooter fans insist that keyboard and mouse is a superior control system, but really it's just what they're used to since fps started on pc's. Key-and-mouse is a shrinking minority. When Unreal Tournament 3 was released, they offered a key-and-mouse controller for ps3, which nobody bought. The market has moved to 2 thumbsticks.

btw consoles didn't always dominate pc's early on. In the early years of Pong, and the Atari 2600, there just weren't enough PC's existing to make pc games commercially viable. But the Commodore 64, the "IBM compatible" and the other "home computers" changed all that. Between Atari 2600 and NES just about every console was a failure because of Commodore 64 and IBM.

Travis that ain't so about games being on computers first. I was there, I know... the first games were in the '70's, when nobody owned a computer. Computers were still big giant mainframes run by scientists in labs, and they weren't interested in games.