Hugbees

You have been warned, this is a long winded rant on why I think PC gaming just needs to disappear already. I'm not a computer expert by any means, and I'm only going by my own personal experience with most of this rant. If you can dispute something I say that would totally invalidate my point then by all means please do it, prove me wrong that computer gaming isn't the worst, most inefficient way to play games. With that being said, you have been warned.

PC gaming is something I've never really bothered much with. I would play games on my computer now and then but never really kept up with the latest system requirements. Most games I played were Blizzard games, which purposely kept their games very low range, making it easier for older computers. computers that I usually had, to run games pretty well. Never in a million years would I ever be faced with games that require way more than I owned to run it.

So is my entire argument really based on the fact that since my computer sucks, therefore computer gaming sucks? No, not really. It certainly doesn't make me any less angry about the situation though.

I'm just going to get to the point. Money is a huge problem when it comes to PC gaming. The hilarity of this is that people will talk about how building a computer for $500 is cheap. Why is that funny? Because (today) a Playstation 3 will cost $300. Right there I'm saving $200 on my chosen gaming platform of choice. We can go back to 2006 when the PS3 was first released when it was $600, and then you can point and laugh at me and say, "Look! It's more expensive than a PC!" but ignoring the fact that the PS3's launch price was beyond ridiculous no matter who you are, I'll just say that, yes, the PS3 does indeed cost $600 and that's how much was paid for it in the following example:

Person A buys a $500 gaming computer, while person B buys a $600 PS3. Clearly the computer was a better deal, but let's see how they're doing now in 2012.

6 years later, Person B is enjoying the newest games on his $600 PS3, some of which are available on the PC platform. Person A is enjoying those same games, and they probably look way better on his awesome PC that... wait, is that even the same PC? Maybe it is, maybe it's not, on the outside anyhow, but anyone who knows anything about computers will know that on the inside those parts are not the same. This is where my lack of PC knowledge will hurt my credibility I'm sure, but no one can say that to upgrade that computer to today's standards from 6 years ago had to have cost over $100, and this isn't even assuming that the hardware would be so outdated that an entirely new computer would have to be built. So if that's true then that's another $500 (or more) spent. So that $600 is looking pretty good right now.

I'll use a real life example of this right now. I'm currently upgrading a computer to be able to run Guild Wars 2 and Diablo 3. Relatively low end games, but what I have still needs upgrading. My situation is somewhat different though, because I'm not upgrading the same computer I've been using. To clarify, I've had an iMac since 2007. (I can hear the screaming now, but granted, I only really played Mac supported games and didn't try too much harder to use bootcamp after a certain point. I think the fact that I have an iMac should more or less let you know that I'm not a PC gamer) I've never once had a problem running any kind of game that was supported on it. With Starcraft 2 I need to totally bottom out the settings but unless it's a custom game with 100's of units running around, I rarely have issues. Now though, I can't even run Diablo 3 on this mac. So we'll say I got about 5 years of gaming power out of this thing. The PC I'm currently upgrading I got from a friend who has plenty of spares, and I'm very grateful for that. Right now I'm looking at about $150 in upgrades for this thing just to run these games. Keep in mind that it meets the recommended requirements in processor speed and ram and everything else to run Diablo 3, and the graphics card is the only thing keeping it back. So, an otherwise pretty good computer is being held back by a graphics card and the power supply I may need to go with it. (My current card in this thing is an integrated one that draws 1.4g of ram so it there's also that)

So from my example, I'll say that after 5 years of owning a computer, I'll have had to have put down about $150 to upgrade it to be able to run my games. So I can't imagine my other example being too far from the truth. $150 isn't so bad, you might say, but it's more than the $0 paid to keep my PS3 running the latest games.

I could probably go on all day, but I think I can pretty much end it off here. In my honest opinion, PCs were not designed for gaming, the proof is in the money. I won't buy into the "it's made for gaming, it's just expensive" argument either. Consoles prove that you don't need to spend a fortune on upgrades every few years. I am aware that consoles upgrade as well, as the Wii-U, and (probably) PS4 and what not are on the way, but the lifespan of a single console generation and the cost of buying a new console isn't so bad on it's own, but definitely a godsend compared to PC gaming prices. I think 6 years without having to keep upgrading your gaming platform, without worrying whether the next game your anticipating will run or not is a pretty sweet deal.

I'll end with this: PC gaming can put out way better graphics than console gaming. However, have you seen what the PS3 can put out? It's nothing to sneeze at. Anyone, anyone at all who is willing to tell me that consoles are holding back PC games from being the absolute best they can be... Well you can go suck my fucking cock, you self centered pricks, if you're going to sit there and tell me that consoles are being held back because they don't require spending double, or triple the cost of a high end PC then you obviously suffer from brain damage and need to get the fuck off your high horse and come back down to Earth.