Have people read this article on piracy?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Sammy033

New Member
Mar 29, 2008
10
0
0
When all is said and done the old saying still applies: you get what you pay for. Consoles can be very nice but by their very nature do have limitations. On the other hand computers serve their purpose by being flexible but do not enjoy some of the specializations and cost savings consoles have.

Perhaps the solution is to buy both a console and an inexpensive laptop instead of a single computer that does both. Unless you need a decent graphics computer like I do in which case the PC isnt going to be inexpensive. But really its not a choice between a PC and a console. Having a PC is a necessity and priority but playing games is not. The question is whether or not the rest of the cost for gaming goes to a console or PC upgrades.
 

haslo

Moar Pie!
Jan 21, 2008
363
0
0
Bern CH
www.haslo.ch
Perhaps the total cost of ownership for a pc and console are equal and maybe it is cheaper to own a pc (after buying x games for both systems).

However nothing can account for the fact that consoles are easier to maintain compared to pc's, which is a pretty important factor when it comes to having fun playing the games ...

Now this isn't a strawman argument, unlike the "cost" one. Particularly considering this very widely shared notion:

Perhaps the solution is to buy both a console and an inexpensive laptop instead of a single computer that does both.

As that's what many people do. And they end up paying more money than for a reasonable gaming computer with it. The real argument that the people using "cost" as an argument think about is probably this, coupled with not stupidity but misinformation: Consoles are less hassle for people who don't know anything about computers.

No driver problems, no update problems, less viruses and trojans, and no installation procedure for games. Put the disk in, it runs, as good or as bad as it will ever run on anybody's console of the same make. It might only be 30fps and have a ****ty resolution, but it won't suddenly drop to 15fps when the expansion comes out, and you don't have to upgrade anything or even think about which part would be most efficient to upgrade.

As others pointed out, OS is something to consider, but office packets are not. Apples and oranges indeed. The thing is, why have a mediocre apple and a mediocre orange when you can have an uber applorange? I like my gaming rig, and it's just that: A killer office, graphics, video and development machine when I need it, and a killer game system ... most of the time, since I do enough programming stuff in the office.

The question is whether or not the rest of the cost for gaming goes to a console or PC upgrades.

Very wise words, so I'll add a QFT here :)

In the end though, I'm still very tempted (and more so than ever due to Patapon) to buy a PSP :p
 
Last edited:

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
That is exactly why I jumped on the "cheap" PC thingy. Even if a few persons can build a substantially cheaper PC that performs on par with a console, who cares? Most gamers can't or don't have the time, knowledge or inclination to do that. Yes, it truly comes down to convenience. Even older gamers are going to consoles because of the convenience factor. If Epic, or any other company, wants to get in on that action, then so be it.
 

MonsOlympus

Active Member
May 27, 2004
2,225
0
36
42
Yeah I can understand that cro but whats the cost? Like sure Epic's games have had bugs and stuff in the past but their latest two games on PC show how its hurting that side of their business. I got no problems with them concentrating on consoles as long as it doesnt affect their PC products, quality and availability.

I do think the person who wrote that article has a point, RTS just seems to be alittle bit of a ripe point on PC currently. It might pickup on consoles with this whole speech recognition thingo so you dont need a mouse. Like graphics are certainly picking up in RTS games but with the view being further out there is less details so I guess on average they tend to run better than FPS games. Not only that but Im sure some of the costs would be alittle less when compared to FPS, but I guess that depends on the title specifically so I shouldnt really make such a broad comment. You can see where Im coming from though, RTS certainly opens the door for more episodic like content as well in my eyes, like to make an RTS map vs a DM/CTF/War map for eg.
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
I suppose in the console world, episodic content would fare better than on PC. Most PC gamers I know would rather get a full up topnotch game they can get solid replay value from than run through a bunch of episodes they have to keep shelling out money over.

But yeah, I think Epic is headed in a direction that leaves most of us PCers kinda cold. But, I doubt they (Epic) will actually leave us out to freeze with no PC games at all. Face it, Epic is expanding and is no longer that tiny developer they once were. They are rather big in the industry, what with so many other developers using UE.
 

T2A`

I'm dead.
Jan 10, 2004
8,752
0
36
Richmond, VA
Heh. Someone from ProU posted this article on Epic's forums and it made it all the way to six pages of normal discussion without any flaming. Epic deleted it anyway. :)
 

MonsOlympus

Active Member
May 27, 2004
2,225
0
36
42
Yeah I agree hey cro they are definatly expanding, I just want to see them do well and their products not to suffer in quality while this expansion takes place. It could be an ongoing process but I think there will be a point where expanding starts costing you more money than its worth.

I would like a full top notch game and I do kinda feel ripped off if I buy a title and expansion to see a bundle later which cuts the price in half. Say titles like dawn of war though, good game with the dark crusade expansion being even better, not as story mode orientated with a non linear campaign compared.

But the time inbetween expansions for RTS is alot lower, like say from dawn of war to winter assault to dark crusade and on or cnc3 to kanes wrath. Compare that to HL2 and you get my drift ;)