PC version petition

#261SilentHawk29Posted 1/29/2013 6:27:12 PM
Only systems I don't own are the 360 (not worth it for the few XBLA games I'd like to play) and the Wii-U. Have my PS3 for the exclusives, 3DS and Vita for their games with most games not shared between the two, and my PC for its exclusives and every single multi-platform title it gets. My Wii (and Move) just sit around collecting dust, lol.
---
PSN - Srikar || WKC2 - Jinto
My car: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8583/86coupe.jpg
#262nukedduckPosted 1/29/2013 6:29:57 PM
Leanaunfurled posted...
Am I the only one that chooses their gaming system purely for its exclusive library? I assume that's the most important part, anyway. PS3 has a great controller and Blu-Ray, Wii has some cool motion control if done well and optional (for most games), PC has KB/M and has mods and can be upgraded and used for other crap as well, among others. But all of those, including handhelds, have their own amazing set of games you can play that others won't, and that's why I still play hours and hours of PS3 even though I also have a high-end PC.


I dont usully play video games...

But when I do, they are PS exclusives....

Stay exclusive my friends.
---
PSN ID: radiatedduck
the most wonderful thing about radiatedducks, is IM THE ONLY ONE!!!
#263LeanaunfurledPosted 1/29/2013 6:36:50 PM
From: nukedduck | #262
I dont usully play video games...

But when I do, they are PS exclusives....

Stay exclusive my friends.

I like exclusives. I like the console war. Competition is good, it gets the companies to outdo each other, it keeps us interested and their consoles interesting. Exclusives are part of that competition, which I'm fine and happy with. With NNK, though, like I said before, it's also the fact of the costs of a port not being worth it to another market.
---
http://i.imgur.com/LF2O7.gif
http://i.imgur.com/WoISA.gif
#264Sylus2015Posted 1/29/2013 7:01:46 PM
From: SilentHawk29 | #258
Uh... Lol? No one is going to build a high-end gaming rig for 5 games. You don't have to build a high-end gaming rig for 5 games. You can build one for $400 and hook it up to the TV since chances are, you won't spend money on a monitor. Then you can run all the new games at the same settings as the consoles do.


Or you could buy a console for $250, and buy those 5 new releases at +$10 over the PC version and still be +$100 over your method, but that's the joys of arguing hypothetical scenarios: we're both making stuff up to justify our point!

I thought you said you were a PC gamer? You can build gaming rigs for $700... That's already $20 cheaper. You could probably even build a pretty good rig at $600. That's a $120 difference.


While it was in poor taste to be so hyperbolic in my example, you're not going to get those titles for 100% off realistically. This goes back to my question, then, would you recommend a PC to the "casual" market who already have a computer (80% of Americans have household computers already, IIRC) and won't buy enough games to send their price ceiling over the price of a decent rig with the same games?

Yes, so am I. If you're buying a console for 3 games and only 3 games, that's quite a fortune. You can build a computer for the same price you spent on said console and 3 games, grab a bunch of humble indie packs for $1 each, and use your computer for other things aside from games.


Or they can buy the console and the three games they want and not have to buy humble bundles just to justify their decision. Also, as I said previously, the "you can use your PC for more" argument, while true, is a bit meaningless considering so many people already have computers that they use for work/browsing/school/etc in the modern world.

Just so that we're both aware at this point, this debate can go on forever because we can cite anecdotal evidence and hypothetical situations until the end of time to provide more backing for our personal stances because, oh right, my whole "too many variables" argument is in effect and we can twist and tweak numbers within a realistic margin to get the outcomes we would like because prices are never a constant thing on anything (even the consoles which we are accepting as unyielding values can go on sale or be gifted which changes this dynamic entirely).
---
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent and discerning if he holds his tongue - Proverbs 17:28
For all intents and purposes, just know me as The Mute...
#265jessica73Posted 1/29/2013 7:09:50 PM(edited)
From: Storm83 | #254
Im all set with blood mods, breast mods for females and Dragon armor which will come from porting it to PC...Although 1080p native res would look cool and maybe a Link suit for Oliver would also look cool ( =

Im just playing. For real though Im totally content on it being a PS3 exclusive. It kind of gives it an extra charm if you know what I mean. Also, if you PC players want it that bad then just go ahead already and start up a petition. No one is stopping you and you have every right to ask for it. Again, Im personally ok with it being just a PS3 exclusive and would not be a hater if it did or didnt come to PC.


I have no idea why it makes it any more charming >_> But maybe it's the same thing as people not wanting to play games on PS2/Wii/SNES/etc emulators in better quality, because the actual hardware brings nostalgia feels?
but i dunno why some people (not you) are being such huge douches about it, like it would physically hurt them if it was on something else. i don't think anything should be exclusive outside first/second part games, though.
---
http://steamsignature.com/img/profile/76561198026469977.png
#266P00DGEPosted 1/29/2013 7:14:49 PM
Aoshi_Knives posted...
PC "gaming" is still around?


People "today" still live under rocks?
#267AsucaHayashiPosted 1/29/2013 8:48:16 PM

Just so that we're both aware at this point, this debate can go on forever because we can cite anecdotal evidence and hypothetical situations until the end of time to provide more backing for our personal stances because, oh right, my whole "too many variables" argument is in effect and we can twist and tweak numbers within a realistic margin to get the outcomes we would like because prices are never a constant thing on anything (even the consoles which we are accepting as unyielding values can go on sale or be gifted which changes this dynamic entirely).


i can stop this argument with one single mention: f2p games.

basically a $400-500 budget computer and anyone can enjoy literally hundreds of free games forever without ever forking out a dime if they so choose.

i've currently spent around 15 hours in the newly released open beta of path of exile and i have 200 hours of gametime in dota 2, a couple of dozen hours in the fps planetside 2 and i could go on and on.

it's a downright fact that you get far more gaming value per $ spent on PC gaming due to available titles for a single platform(meaning a $500 computer today gets access to literally 15000+ games whereas ANY single console can muster up 1000-2000 titles at best at the end of their cycle), mods for available games which is basically an endless amount of free DLC, F2P games and the near constant amount of sales.

the only instance where console gaming ends up the cheaper option is if the person only sticks with one box and maybe 20-30 games to offset the price of the gaming computer because as i said, once you have that computer in hand you already have access to hundreds upon hundreds of games.

pretty much nothing comes close whatsoever regardless of what anecdotal evidence you or i can present regarding money spent vs amount of gaming received.
---
If console gaming is so cheap then why do I have to spend $600~ in order to play Super Mario Galaxy, Uncharted 3 and Halo 3?
#268SilentHawk29Posted 1/29/2013 9:04:08 PM(edited)
From: Sylus2015 | #264
Or you could buy a console for $250, and buy those 5 new releases at +$10 over the PC version and still be +$100 over your method, but that's the joys of arguing hypothetical scenarios: we're both making stuff up to justify our point!

$150 over. Wait a month and get those 5 games on a half-off sale and it still comes out $25 less than the $250 console and 5 games. Wait a month for the games on the console, and you might get $5 off, $10 if you're lucky. But this is just factoring in 5 games. What about 10? 20?

While it was in poor taste to be so hyperbolic in my example, you're not going to get those titles for 100% off realistically. This goes back to my question, then, would you recommend a PC to the "casual" market who already have a computer (80% of Americans have household computers already, IIRC) and won't buy enough games to send their price ceiling over the price of a decent rig with the same games?

No, realistically you could find them for half off (probably larger than that, but we'll say half for an average). That's about $175. All of a sudden the $600 rig capable of playing most games on high settings between 30 and 60FPS costs only $50 more. $40 if you throw in another game for both setups at full price, breaking even at 5 games over the initial 7, all 5 being at full price. Now we both know, it'll be a hell of a lot easier to find sales on those 5 games for PC than it would be for the console, even on games that just came out. Realistically, it'd break even after only 2 or 3 games. Is 12 really that large of a number of games to have, even for casual owners? After those 12 titles, the PC ends up costing less.

As far as household computers, a lot of them can be beefed up with just a PSU and a GPU to play new games at a good framerate. A lot cheaper than buying a console, wouldn't you think?

Or they can buy the console and the three games they want and not have to buy humble bundles just to justify their decision. Also, as I said previously, the "you can use your PC for more" argument, while true, is a bit meaningless considering so many people already have computers that they use for work/browsing/school/etc in the modern world.

THQ just had a humble bundle for $7 or so for 5 games. They aren't all indie titles. I picked up Red Faction: Guerrilla, Red Faction: Armageddon, Metro 2033, Homefront, and Warhammer 40k: Space Marine, all for under $10. But let's be honest here, anyone who buys a single system for a couple of games clearly has disposable income lying around. If the system was gifted to someone with no income, then price isn't an argument for either side.

Just so that we're both aware at this point, this debate can go on forever because we can cite anecdotal evidence and hypothetical situations until the end of time to provide more backing for our personal stances because, oh right, my whole "too many variables" argument is in effect and we can twist and tweak numbers within a realistic margin to get the outcomes we would like because prices are never a constant thing on anything (even the consoles which we are accepting as unyielding values can go on sale or be gifted which changes this dynamic entirely).

There are not "too many variables." There's only one, and that's how many games a person plans on playing throughout the lifetime of the system. Short span? Consoles of course come out on top. A dozen games or more? The PC starts to edge out. A console "lifespan?" You'll probably spend almost double than on PC.
---
PSN - Srikar || WKC2 - Jinto
My car: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8583/86coupe.jpg
#269shoe7essPosted 1/29/2013 9:32:37 PM
Leanaunfurled posted...
Am I the only one that chooses their gaming system purely for its exclusive library? I assume that's the most important part, anyway. PS3 has a great controller and Blu-Ray, Wii has some cool motion control if done well and optional (for most games), PC has KB/M and has mods and can be upgraded and used for other crap as well, among others. But all of those, including handhelds, have their own amazing set of games you can play that others won't, and that's why I still play hours and hours of PS3 even though I also have a high-end PC.


This. So this.
---
You might as well paint yourself yellow, run around like a maniac, and call yourself Banana Man.
PSN/GT: shoe7ess
#270Sylus2015Posted 1/29/2013 10:19:51 PM
@Asuca
If you can satisfy yourself with nothing but f2p games, good for you. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of f2p games I love. However, as nice as they are, you can't say the existence of the free content justifies the larger overhead because enjoyment is subjective and just because something is free doesn't mean it's worth anyone's time. Also, isn't your comment about the 20-30 games coinciding with the argument I'm making? It is. Seriously, that's been the point I've been making all along. I am in entire agreement that after you pass a certain number of game purchases, you are better off with a PC. You just have to reach that cap, and because that cap is not a number that can be calculated with accuracy due to prices being an ever-changing value, you have no way of saying that a PC is cheaper for everyone in every situation. In some, yes. For most people here, yes. But for everyone, no.

@Silent
There you go making up numbers again, doing exactly what I said you could do by filling in the blanks with numbers that fall within the large margin of realistic values to affirm your position. It's funny how you say that there is only one variable, yet you throw around at least three different values of a decent gaming rig and a wide spectrum of game prices within each of your posts. As much as I would love to keep playing this battle of make-up numbers and imagining hypothetical situations, I'm heading to bed. I wholly look forward to you coming up with more hypothetical situations where all the prices are considered constant on anything but the items you're using to make your point.
---
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent and discerning if he holds his tongue - Proverbs 17:28
For all intents and purposes, just know me as The Mute...