Directly related to gaming:

1) Reduced Cheating: The restrictive nature of consoles make it harder to cheat online than on a PC.

Look at the demands of ending cross-play because of rampant PC cheating.

2) A level competitive playing field. Hardware restrictions mean software can't be modifiable outside the perimeter that the Console permits. On PC, expect a few .ini's to be modified relating back to 1.

3) Developer orientation. The most popular console is the most popularly developed for. And very likely to have exclusives that are not available to PC. Exclusives may or may not be a pro in of itself, but a gaming library is important.

4) Hardware standardisation. Simply put, consoles set the stage of PC specifications. Had 16Gb before PS4 was even a thing? Isn't needed if you simply wish to game. Now PS5 is a thing, the minimum requirements are raised.

5) Hardware innovation (Wii, Amiibo, Dreamcast VDU as a few) that isn't on PC. If you point to VR (Nintendo), how long has it taken PC? Like it or not, it's why I hold the Wii in highest regard.

6) Cost efficient.

7) PC libraries also on Consoles.

Other effects:

1) Operating System is tailored to the hardware and its function.

2) Convenience (Playstation 2 came with a functioning DVD player, Playstation 4 a Media HUB), alot of these have to be fiddled with on PC, with specific DVD/BLU-Ray software and Ease of Purchase (Walmart, Asda, over the counter unlike components such as an AMD 580).

3) Physical copies and Collector's Editions if you happen to actually like them (some of them I do) (PC sadly doesn't get these much).


If it wasn't for the dire state that consoles are in right now, I would probably still prefer a console over pc. I would never play again online on PC, but would happily do so on a console.

The original Xbox was a really good example of a console, even had peripheral support for Steel Battalion. That thing is the equivalent of a flight sim hotas set-up.


They're entertainment centres, not workstations. Besides the initial PS3 would allow it, you could run Linux on the thing, it was an amazing feat. The PS3 also contributed cpu calculations to Standford University's Folding@home if the user permitted.

Going to have to say, all your points point to why I would say pc is better?

1) Reduced Cheating: Can’t say on this as I don’t multiplayer.

2) PCs ability to be modified, improved performance or graphics etc. Are key reasons to use PC? I played AC Odyssey on my PS4 pro and compared it to main main machine, aside from the fact PS4 only pushed out HD, the graphics were noticeably worse in every way..

3) can you provide some evidence? I do have a ps3/4 for some exclusives, but that really is a very rare case. A lot of Sony games are currently being ported to pc, so an even shallower exclusive market. There are however thousands of games from pc which are not on console, not to mention all the emulated ones.

4) sorry, this point makes no sense. Your pc does a lot more than a console, web browsing, office, media center all can be multasked much better with 16gb. In fact you can choose exactly the hardware you need for the tasks you want, from a tiny media center in the living room, to a 60cm behemoth for gaming, you are not limited to the hardware given.

5) the wii was a novelty. Other than that is probably one of the worst consoles I have owned. If it’s gimmicks like light guns and such like fine, but even the games are quite poor. Always been disappointed by Nintendo offerings since GameCube. Have a switch currrntly, and other than mariokart I am not seeing any reasons to keep it. 48gb download for MK11, wonky as heck control on skyward sword. I mean it’s nice having the detachable controllers, but unless you have tiny hands it’s not great, where pc you can have as many controllers plugged in as you like, size as whichever you prefer.

6) True, PCs are more expensive, but I would say due their nature of being upgradable, have a far, far longer lifespan than consoles.

7) to a degree, but all the old games? Most were never ported. Emulation, very little. Browser games, none. You can play everything on pc (sometimes with an emulator of course), even ps3 is quite playable and PS4 exclusives on pc now.

Other effects:

1) yes, there is something to be said for this, but then you could use Linux and fully tailor it as well. With windows there is a baseline, and you can shrink that a lot.

2) yes, I used to use the PS3 as a DVD player, but who uses dvds now, or blue rays. Everything I have is now files on massive hard drives, fire up the pc media center and I have everything there at my fingertips.

3) yes, but those days are going even on console, it’s all digital download, and you will find consoles see these start to disappear as well.

If they weren't I'm sure a number of games would be far less popular than they are. The same with the music industry and the sudden insurgence of music available via Nabster. The more popular something is the more likely it is to sell. Locking something up will only deter those that might be customers, and especially those that refuse DRM.

In response to nightcraw1er.488:
###

I'm not sure if your 2 is meant to be a response to my 2, but I'll assume so?

[2] Competitive playing field simply means that no user may have hardware advantage in a software title. Or likewise to 1, it's locked-down to prevent anyway to bypass rules leading to cheating. Dark Souls 2 had a rampant issue of this on the PC if I recall correctly, picking up a hacked item resulted in a ban, even unaware if the item was hacked. It's a multiplayer issue that is still fundamental to games like SFV, or Tekken.

I would like to add additionally the argument that playerbase of specific games may not be available on certain platforms, meaning consoles are important for more social gaming.

[3] My argument was not just about exclusives entirely, but:

a) developers flocking to the most dominant hardware platform, it's that games as a whole are developed primarily for one console (the dominant), scaled for the next (less dominant). I can cite a few examples for this. They're mainly Triple A however. There was the fiasco of Batman Arkham Knight because it was a PS4 port (if I recall correctly, there was an issue in DirectX). Dark Souls had keyboard and mouse issues. A more recent issue was Ninja Gaiden and Nioh 2.

Big Rooster talks about Publisher/Developer Attitudes. One System, shoe horn the next. Note the disparity between X360/PS3 and Wii. [https://www.engadget.com/2007-07-28-big-rooster-veteran-devs-talk-about-multiplat-games-ps3s-poten.html

b) Exclusives follow as developers/publishers may not be interested in extending beyond those systems.

c) Also, on the porting of Sony exclusives: I think the company is now in sheer dire straits and is on the verge of collapse in the next 5-10 years. It's made I argue terrible business decisions. I do eagerly await Ghost of Tsushima on PC however.

d) PC exclusives to console. It depends on what the publishers/developers wish to do.

https://hackinformer.com/2016/05/18/dosbox-port-running-xbox-one/

[4] I'll clarify the point:

Hardware standardisation: game developers simply use a common hardware configuration for how the game will run, this hardware standard for pc has for the most part always ran parallel to the console equivalent and anything above that tends to be wasted. I've never needed 16GB Ram for example for Metro Exodus, only 8GB since this is parallel to PS4 specifications. Now with PS5 releases, games like Kena demand of me 12gb ram, yet still keeping the FX-6100 processor as a parallel to PS5's hardware.

Secondly, outside of hardware standardisation, not all PCs are the same. Your system configuration could constitute a Radeon PRO W6000 GPU for production which would be inadequate for gaming. An individual who may only want a simple browsing laptop may only have 4gb instead of 16gb with an integrated intel gpu.

Thirdly, influencing hardware standardisation, PC components cost money, and individuals may not wish to invest in 16gb when 8gb was sufficient enough and only in a 1060ti when a 2070 maybe over the top. My current computer rig was composed of specifications that paralleled the PS4 to run the equivalent on the PC. This approach has not failed me so far. And given the current state of consoles, I see no reason to upgrade for the foreseeable future either.

While this will reinforce your point of flexibility in a computer system, and it most certainly does, my point is that because of the two sides, consoles are the standardised middle-ground. An acceptable midpoint between the two. And given the numbers of sales of hardware, they can calibrate the game in accordance. The only equivalence on PC is Steam Survey I suppose.

Pricepoint becomes a dictate in console sales which results in how game developers approach the requirements.

I argue developers see this, and craft mainly around it, and I cite hardware requirements on average for this.

[5]
a) A novelty that is continuing and gaining steady traction to something more stable. (Joycons, PS4/5 Controller and VR controllers for PC for the most part).

b) Problem is however PC hasn't innovated like this. Most certainly GPU, CPU improvements, and the Physics card that Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter utilised. But not really peripheral.

[6] My first specific hardware failure was an AMD 380x GPU (lasted ~4 years). My laptop that I used to have gave way within three. I've yet to have a console failure. I understand there are failures, 360 is quite a clear case, I guess my experience is the opposite.

If you mean longer lifespan because of their upgradable nature, the boards keep changing along with CPU upgrades, FM2, AM3, 2011, 1156. Once in a blue moon does the GPU too with a new PCI-E version. The cost of a CPU replacement, and even a GPU replacement is amplified by the cost of the motherboard and all the parts that maybe incompatible and need replacing. My 380x died recently, it was the choice of a 580x or a new system completely to accommodate the newer RNA2. 580x won out.

At this point the constant change may as well result in being classified as a new computer all together.

[7]

Two points:

1)a) I think it's a market issue for the older games. Old Doom games have made their way on places like Nintendo Switch for example. If the demand is there, I think they'll provide. Monkey Island 2 was on the PS3 for example.

b) The other issue is what is to come. I touched upon this in another post in this thread, and that is the transformation of consoles as we know it. Consoles are now premade Alienware/Dell/ [insert brand here] PCs. This became a thing in the latter days of PS3/X360 and at the beginning of the PS4/XBOX ONE [pro varients included] cycle, finalising in the PS5/SERIES X cycle.

Xbox is becoming that, it allows Stadia streaming (for what it is worth) through their browser Edge. Xbox allows emulation of its older titles from the original xbox days, meaning that it is paralleling PC with a 'Good Old Games' approach. Integrating Geforce Now means streaming Steam games to a certain extent.

[https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/xbox-consoles-new-browser-can-also-stream-steam-games-including-death-stranding/]

PC is great for emulation, no question about it. But XBOX, Playstation and Nintendo are now doing it, so PC users aren't the only ones in emulation anymore. Alot of the releases such as the Mega Man collection are apparently emulated. Ninja Gaiden Black on the Xbox is now emulated. The difference between the PC and console emulation I would argue is simply licensing and prior ownership at this point. I think they'll catch up.


Other effects:

1) a) use Linux and fully tailor it as well.

Well yes... If you know how to... Have the time to... Then if you leave it to a company to do so, it becomes bespoke and can end up costing more.

The console is premade convenience.

Windows can be shrunk to a certain extent. But also corruptible overtime too, for both, the user needs operating knowledge. Bear in mind here that we are both knowledgable on computer systems, the average user that also needs to be taken into account, may not. This is the appeal of the console to certain demographics.

2) To an extent. It's probably one of the reasons for a discless PS5 and Xbox One S release. They now are built to accommodate streaming, and being a cheaper price point for the user. The console systems are simply designed for the relative convenience of its time.

3) Yes. So I'll cherish it while it lasts.

###

I'll restate one point I made:

The other issue is what is to come. I touched upon this in another post in this thread, and that is the transformation of consoles as we know it. Consoles are now premade Alienware/Dell/ [insert brand here] PCs, but without the productivity. This became a thing in the latter days of PS3/X360 and at the beginning of the PS4/XBOX ONE [upgrades desired are the pro varients] cycle, finalising in the PS5/SERIES X cycle.

I think there's going to be a transformation of PC Gaming, and console gaming as a whole. Microsoft has ditched consoles in a more traditional sense. Halo Infinite is no exclusive. And the mention of Windows 11 and Xbox integration seems to only confirm my suspicions more than negate them. At this point they could just make Xbox PCs. I think Nintendo might have seen the writing on the wall too, to go in the Switch direction which conveniently replaced the 3DS.


Well, these are my thoughts.

I'm considering on giving up completely on gaming. PC Gaming is extremely expensive, multiple storefronts, exclusive and other stuff.

Pardon?

Some of those points might be pretty valid if you are some constructor type, have a whole sale agenda or think of the economy as your own ...

Hardware innovation? A level competitive playing field ??? Hardware standardisation ?? developer orientation ???
We might throw in just as well, as you yourself named at the end of your message that a pc is not a purely an entertainment system... Gee we might as well add if you go along that road that without pc's it would be impossible to edit those precious console games, and to be honest.. the publicity and the enormous console crowd is just as much an innovation killer as a smaller crowd is.

Sorry, yes I should have started with noting I took your numbers. I think in the main we at it in a different way. I look only at single player and offline, you are focused on multiplayer, so our points are probably quite valid in their own fields but don’t overlap. With the rest, we’ll, each to their own. I own several consoles and never use them, in fact I may well sell them.

Not me, never. Variety of games alone is an advantage bigger than anything else. You sound like an old man alright. I remember times when I had to fight with tapes, cassette recorders, drivers, ridiculous software conflicts, damaged diskettes, lack of patches and other nasty shlt. PC gaming is more friendly that ever - or maybe it was before pandemic and bitcoin mining nonsense. Those things ruined hardware market which is crucial for new high budget games. But if you aren't into most demanding 3D titles, you may have plenty of fun. I'm still using GTX 970 and my only issue is lack of time.

I find it an extremely cheap hobby. I've probably spent not much more than 25 Euro on it the last year, even though I usually play some hours per day.
(And no, I don't pirate games, if anyone should wonder.)

I don't really keep up with the latest on PC so that part doesn't bother me and there's such a huge library of retro and indie games available along with emulators and mods, it's great.

Having to look up community patches for games on here just to be able to play them is annoying though.

No, because that would mean giving up on DRM-Free.

Console games are of course the ultimate in DRM. Yes there are some benefits of playing with a locked system, but there is no getting around that it is as DRM as it gets.

You also generally pay much more for console games, and there are far less console games compared to PC games.

And then you have redundancy. Unless a console provider chooses to give backwards compatibility to older console games, you are pretty much stuffed or limited to your older console surviving the duress of time.

Consoles are a closed loop with all that entails.

P.S. Sure, if lucky many console games might end up being available to work with emulators one day, but there is no guarantee of that, and in my experience they don't play anywhere near as nicely on an emulator.

Not entirely sure I agree with you there. Consoles are not drm by default. I have ps1-4, all physical media, I can use those in any ps system? I can use my carts on whichever switch? Now I know that modern ones are going more online shop and abandoning physical, but currently that’s not prominent. For instance, I have Diablo 3 on PS4, I can play it with nothing more than the disc (I even think there is a way to play without the disc), however on pc you need online connections and such like, so far more DRM’d. Cost is also mostly the same across systems, assassins creed odyssey was exactly the same pricing console/pc.

Ultimate form of drm is streaming. No ownership of anything.

The constant need to upgrade a computer is a big turn off for some people. You only need the next generation console once for several years?

Well you sort of answer yourself by mentioning the online PC requirement.

As for the PS consoles themselves, while the disc content may not be encrypted, the disc itself is recognized. So the ultimate test would be to burn a copy of a legit PS disc and see if that plays in your console. If not, we have DRM ... otherwise you could burn copies for all your friends etc. Ensuring you test while offline, else a game ownership check might occur, allowing some support for backups.

I am no expert on consoles I fully admit, even though I have most of them ... kids use them not me, especially after the slot insert PS3 chewed up my favorite music blu-ray. No more slot drives for me.