The battle has long waged between different gamer types. Which is better, console or PC gaming? That’s a question that likely won’t be answered in this generation, but we can all keep trying.
Since 2009, PC game revenues have increased while console game revenues have decreased. 2010 marked the first recent shift in trends where more money was generated through PC game sales than console games. The trend started showing signs of reversing this year as projections for the holidays and into 2012 show a greater increase in console gaming sales over PC.
Hardcore-PC-Gamers often point to processing power as the reason behind their choice. PS3 is the most powerful of the major consoles but weighs in at 550 MHz. While this is plenty for nearly all games, the rise of HD and 3D games is starting to require more juice than to run at peak graphic performance.
Regardless of which side you’re on, one thing is clear: there is no end in sight for either PC or console gaming. The popularity of both is on the rise and there’s enough room for more contenders if necessary.
This infographic by our friends at Ignite breaks down the battle lines and demonstrate why the war will continue, likely for a long, long time.
Click to enlarge.
More facepalming due to more retards that think they have ground for an argument coming your way… [i.e. the author of this article who does not have the proper qualifications to even stand on the same stage]
You seem to forget that gaming started on consoles infront of the tv.
You don’t understand that not many games are GPU intensive and a lot run based upon the CPU. Coloured persons don’t know bout my 4GHz GPU, and for you to think that GHz = everything, you seem to forget the fact that even a 8800 from ~6 years ago still has 3x the stream and core processors.
“Now that PCs have developed better graphics” /fuckingfail
Any “gaming” PC has had superior graphics to any console since the introduction of Windows 98.
Also, you don’t include the monthly fees for P2P games in the projected outcomes, nor do you include that fact of game lifetimes: e.g. CS still running strong since 1999 [1.6 since 2003], where as the next terrible adaptation of call of duty will not last more than 3 years.
Nor do you weigh the differences of gaming experiences. Even consoles with games that are designed for 1 set of hardware still have framerate lag.Â
Console: Service like XBL or PSN goes down? There goes your online experience, or single-player for new games with terrible DRM.
PC: Server goes down, a. goto another dedicated server if fps/rts/etc, or b. there is a listed down-time so I planned around said gap and I went to play another game as I can b/c I don’t have a single service monitoring the entirety of my gaming experience.
Not to mention the registry issues due to use of P2P (peer-to-peer) network over a dedicated server system. In simple terms which looks more efficient: computer server or peer3 peer1 peer2 peer3, where 1 terrible connection = crap. P2P networks are fine for file transfer but not for gaming.
Everyone will most likely have a computer anyway as they are used for much more than gaming. There is the argument that console is cheaper, but in reality it is not. Would it not make more sense to spend more money on a better computer (built/bought) and have a better experience with hardware that will last longer and actually do something, or half ass both your gaming experience and buy a sub-par $250-500 computer and complain about how slow/crappy it is and replace it within a year. The choice is clear.