ExtremeTech.com ran an article today titled Five PC Gaming Myths. This article was so poorly thought out, I felt strongly compelled to write a response. With that, below are the five myths along with select quotes from the article, along with my own comments and responses.
Myth #1: PC gaming is way too expensive
In an attempt to debunk this first myth, the author points out that gaming machines can be bought for “under $1,500.” I don’t know about you, but right off the bat, $1,500 sounds pretty expensive to me. The author justifies the price by stating that “computers do more than just play games,” but he fails to mention that in this day and age, so do gaming consoles. The original Xbox, which can be bought for “under $100”, makes a pretty good media center and emulation box. My favorite quote from this section was, “Of course, $1,500 isn’t chump change. It’s far more expensive than a $300 console system,” which sounds to me like he’s supporting the myth he’s supposed to be debunking. The final section of his argument is that new PC games cost $50, while PS3 and Xbox 360 games cost $60. Of course the author ignores Wii games (which list for $50). To further make his point, the author points out that older PC games are “often available for $20 or $30.” That’s true. Then again, Wal-Mart has select PS2 games bundles with 3 games for $10.
Another fact the author neglected to mention was that his $1,500 machine will no doubt need to be upgraded. My PS2, Xbox and Gamecube (and Atari 2600, NES and Super Nintendo, if you want to go old school) have never needed upgrading. They’re still running on the game processors, video cards, and RAM they shipped with. I doubt a $1,500 gaming PC purchased the same day the PS2 launched (in 2001) will run new games without needing upgrades.
Rob’s Summary: PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming.
Myth #2: PC gaming means nothing but broken releases, updates, and patches
Once again, the author makes several statements which seem not to dispell but rather support the myth. The author states that because PC game makers must test their games against loads of configurations, “some PC games release with bugs and need to be patched. Okay, virtually every game gets a patch.” Maybe it’s just me, but if “virtually every game gets a patch,” doesn’t that sound like broken releases? The author’s major point here is that console games are now requiring patches as well.
The second half of the author’s argument is that “Windows does a good job of auto-patching itself,” a comment that just sent IT employees across the globe chuckling. And again, the author points out that all three modern consoles require system firmware upgrades.
What the author does not mention is how many times I have purchased PC games only to get them home and discover that they would not work with my computer. Sometimes it’s the video card, sometimes it’s the processor, sometimes it’s a driver, sometimes nobody knows why and I’m just out of luck. I’ve never purchased a PS3 game that didn’t work on my PS3 when I got it home.
Rob’s Summary: I think even my hardcore PC-gaming friends would agree that PC games receive more patches than console games. While I agree that it’s probably not as bad as some people envision, it’s certainly more prevelant on PCs than it is on consoles.
Myth #3: PC games don’t sell, and are falling far behind console game sales
The author’s argument here is that people wrongfully compare the total number of PC games sold to the total number of console games sold, where instead we should divide the total number of console games sold by the total number of consoles to get more accurate comparisons. I’ll buy that. His other points are that the online sales of PC games aren’t included in those numbers. My problem with this whole myth was, who cares? I don’t care if Halo 3 only sells twelve copies this year as long as I get one, copies, and I couldn’t care less if PC games outsell console games 100 to 1. Sales numbers don’t affect my personal gaming experience one bit.
Rob’s Summary: Somebody, somewhere is still losing sleep over which platform sells the most games.
Myth #4: Online gaming on the PC is a mess, and no match for the likes of Xbox Live
The author’s argument here has three major points. First, he states that PC-based online gaming programs Steam and Xfire do more than Xbox Live. As a caveat I have not used these services, but based on their websites, I can do some simple comparisons.
The author complains that for online gaming to work, the 360 and PS3 need to download upgrades. He conveniently forgets to mention that Steam performs mandatory auto-updating every time you run it, one of the biggest complains about the product. The author complains that Steam is free, while Xbox Live is not. Again, he avoids the fact that online gaming on the PS3 is free.
His final argument is that Xbox Live costs $50/year, while “on the PC, with the obvious exception of MMOs like World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings Online, is almost always free.” The obvious avoided logic here is that if you play *2* PC games online, then PC gaming is more expensive.
Once again in a poor attempt to persuade readers, the author has left out some obvious facts. The fact is, online console gaming is four hundred and ninty-two billion times easier to set up than most online PC games. Boot up your console, it’s online. Load up your game, and you’re ready for online play. Anyone who’s ever tried installing an online game on their PC, configure Vista, open ports on a wireless router, only to hit a blue screen or simply give up after hours of effort knows what a pain in the ass it can sometimes be to get these things to work.
Rob’s Summary: Online gaming on a PC is more complicated than online gaming on a console, and is no match for Xbox Live.
Myth #5: Copy protection on PC games is a major headache
The author begins this one with, “Okay, I’ll kind of give you this one.” He later states that some annoying PC copy protection schemes can be circumvented with “no CD cracks.” He ends his argument with, “So yeah, PC copy protections can be a bigger annoyance than the console ‘just pop in the disc and don’t worry about it’ model.” His only real complaint against console gaming is that things downloaded to your console cannot be easily moved to someone else’s console. My response to that would be, well, duh.
Rob’s Summary: Copy protection on PC games can be a major headache.
Hidden in the middle of the author’s conclusion is the hidden gem, “great games are where you find them.” That may be the one part of his article that I completely agree with. Truly good games are platform independent. You can find good games everywhere. Too bad the same can’t be said for web journalism.
Aside from the fact that the guy is an idiot…”After the cost of entry, PC gaming is actually a better deal than consoles.” What a stupid statement.
…I personally don’t know ANYONE who pays FULL price for a game. Unless you are one of those people who goes into convulsions, throws a fit and acts like and idiot if you can’t play a new title on launch day, you can get almost ANY game at half price or less within a month or so and sometimes even weeks…I tend to keep myself busy this way so by the time I finish one game, the next one has been out and someone somewhere has traded it (enter; God of War 2 which I picked up for 11.99 @ a video rental store of all places in a used bin)…Personally I think console gaming is just easier, insert disc, play. I can’t tell you how many times over the years I got my hands on a PC game and my video card was not powerful enough to play it, or I had to set everything to “low”, I had to “tweak” the system, or I needed more RAM etc …waaaay too many variables for the likes of me (and the days of tracing a code wheel are loooong gone ;). So for me personally, that 1500 buck PC he’s blabbing about could turn into a sweet console and game library for me pretty quickly…especially at used/trade prices…