PC Gamers out-performed Console Gamers

I dont, the primary reason I don't have a console.

You're not everyone though. I'm heavily on the PC side, but I know people who'd rather play FPS on the console because having the limitation adds a different aspect to the gameplay.

Turning rate is a lot more limited, and I can see that being more fun. You can spin around way too fast in some FPS games.

If keyboard+mouse provided such a massive bonus to PERCEIVED skill level, then it's obvious why they don't enable it for xbox... because it would make it mandatory to keep up.

I far prefer the keyboard / mouse (or in my case trackball) combo.. in fact I do not own a controller for my pc at all.

.. Sorry I forgot to add the word "some"... obviously not everyone prefers playing only with a controller.. hence pc games.  But just the same, some ppl DO prefer playing with a controller over a keyboard / mouse even if it's not as strong as using keyboard / mouse, hence consoles.  

While I am definitely on the PC, mouse/keyboard side of things, I can't imagine trying to play MotoGP or some of my other racing games without my trusty Logitech Controller.

I still have the mouse/keyboard for my Dreamcast and the keyboard adapter(PS2 type) for my Saturn.

Actually if consoles had keyboard / mouse combo as a rule they would pwon more then they do now.. as this would allow for different (some would say better) control schemes.. (any one list a good rts on consoles? for example)..

  the reason consoles are so popular is the price and ease of setup compared to pc. back in the day a good pc for gaming was 2 to 3 times the cost of a console (if not more) and all ya had to do was hook it to a tv .. it was an all in 1 inexpensive (comparably) system.. also it software did not alter for several years so was easy to create games for.. let alone early pc games were on fragile tape or disks while consoles were cartridges... so they caught on and here we are today..

For you, yes, they might be better that way.  However, "SOME" people prefer the controller.  I would never have bought any console I own if it was just keyboard / mouse.  I already have a computer to do that.

The historic reason why consoles were popular is no longer the current reason either and isn't really any issue.  $600 for a PS3 when it came out was very expensive.

I can snipe people with a handgun in Far Cry 2 from so far away their heads are a single pixel. Whereas with a gamepad, I can barely hit something using the spray and pray method from 5 meters away. There's a reason console game weapons have a melee mode whereas most PC games don't.

July 24, 2010 9:17:29 AM

For you, yes, they might be better that way. However, "SOME" people prefer the controller. I would never have bought any console I own if it was just keyboard / mouse. I already have a computer to do that. The historic reason why consoles were popular is no longer the current reason either and isn't really any issue. $600 for a PS3 when it came out was very expensive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

600 dollars IS expensive until you consider a good gaming desktop computer ranges in the 2000 or more range

Which is why the PS3 was a failure at launch (and still is to an extent). You'll notice however, that the Wii was $250 and launch and dominated the other two consoles.

There is also always the point that a computer can accomplish so much more than just gaming.

LOL I could put together a PC that would be 4x more powerful than a PS3 for a little over a grand.

I guess no one remembers the Dreamcast? It had Quake 3 and you could play with PC users. I set up a DC server and connected to it via my PC. When all was said and done I had racked up over 500 kills...and 2 deaths.

At the start of the console generation you'd need to go for 2 grand to beat the consoles, but these days the opposite is true; you can build more powerful machines for less than the cost of the console.  The problem is you need to custom-build to do that, and most people just won't put in the effort.

Not even then. When they came out you'd get the same thing for $1000, now you get way more. Even in 2006 a 3 ghz processor, 256mg video card, and 256mb of RAM wasn't very expensive.

Actually I was reading a financial report about why a lot of gaming had moved to console, and apparently it is because they can reach a much larger audience. Where as some of us understand the inner workings of a computer, how to build and maintain the system, and understand the system requirements of software, a large amount of people do not, so much in fact that a lot are wary of playing computer games and would much rather have an XBOX which enables them to plug and play rather then having to screw around with system settings to get games to work.

I personally hate consoles, but thats just me.

Just matching the console's specs isn't enough; you have to match its performance.  Consoles get a little extra mileage out of their lower specs because they're standardized, so PC's generally need higher specs to compete.  That said, I'll agree that 2000 would be on the high end.

This is shocking news...  Earth shattering...

Why?  There wasn't anyone at Microsoft working on this project that could have blown their nose if brains were dynamite.

They really needed to test this?  I guess the best case scenario to hope for is a bunch of retarded fuck console players couldn't grasp the obvious and needed it proven before they'd stop begging to school the pc gamers at Halo or something...

God himself couldn't kill me while using a console unless I got struck by lightning while playing, and I'm not even any good these days.

and since they aren't running an OS and a bunch of other applications in the background. 

You'll also remember that the Wii is drastically different and definitely would have failed sans the unique controller, so that doesn't really fit in here either.

That's a very strange thing to say. If it wasn't for the Wii's controller, it would have failed? Let's see what else we could add to that category. If it wasn't for the bluray player would the PS3 have failed? If it wasn't for the online connectivity, would the 360 fail? You're talking about something that the system was built around and saying without it it woudl have failed except all of them has some sort of focus, otherwise we wouldn't have 4, yes 4 solid gaming machines to choose for, more if you count handhelds and the iproducts. Let's take away the controls from the PS3 and 360 and give them joysticks, would that make them fail? Utter. Nonsense. The Wii has a lot to offer,by the way, not just a controller.

Anyway. No surprise on the PC gamers spanking the console players. The precision just isn't there with the controllers. As for playing with controllers, I don't want a mouse and keyboard for my console. If i want to play a game with PC controls, I'd play on the PC. When I play a console game, it's a kick yoru feet up, sit back with my wireless controller kind of affair for me. My PC gaming, though sometimes leisure, is often more intense and focused and complex than my console games. I want to keep those two separate, otherwise, i wouldn't have two gaming machines.

interesting you say this (though a bit exaggerated with spray and pray)

B/c i think the mouse is too accurate (as you said sniping with a pistol about 300 meters away), that i find PC FPS to be too easy to aim and thus boring or feels like im playing a babies game.

The controller on consoles adds a degree of difficulty so you arent sniping difficult shots so easy. I play COD on consoles and hated how easy it was to aim. Played it on PC, and i couldnt stand it at all. Cant believe PC games even play it. Complete trash.

Now if you want to talk real aiming system then ya you need a mouse.

srsly.. why do random ppl keep jumping in quoting replies and completely misconstruing them because they didn't bother to follow the rest of the conversation?