PC Gaming vs Console Gaming
Debate Rounds (4)
I'm for PC; opponent is for console. We are debating over which is the better platform for gaming overall.
R2: Constructive Arguments
R4: More Rebuttals and Conclusions
10,000 Characters; 72 hours per round.
Hoping for a fun debate =)
Welcome to DDO! Thank you for accepting this debate, and I hope we both have a great time.
Contention 1: Price
I want to start off by adressing the price issue. Many people [mistakenly] think that PC's are much more expensive than Consoles. While this can be true, a decent PC will actually cost you about the same in the long run, even though it will cost more up front.
An Xbox One and PS4 are both going to be around $400. A Wii U is around $300. The price range for a PC can vary greatly depending on the system. However, I believe that at a price point of $1000, you can get an absolutely beast PC. I went to PC Part Picker and made a parts list equalling $1000 (including the operating system and wifi adapter). This thing can play everything at ultra settings 1080p 60 FPS. Here: http://pcpartpicker.com...
Ok, now that we've established the up-front costs. Let's go ahead and do some math:
Xbox One: $400
Wii U: $300
Now, an average Console game is going to be around 60 dollars. The price of a PC game will vary quite a bit. Some are $60, but a lot are quite less. I'm going to assume that the average is around $40. The Current generation of consoles will probably end in about 6 years. So let's assume that we get around 5 games every year. In 6 years, the price will be:
Xbox One: $2200
Wii U: $2100
Ok. Now we have to add in the price of playing onlilne. PS4 is $50 a year and the Xbox One is $60 a year. Wii U doesn't have a subscription.
Xbox one: $2560
Wii U: $2,100
So as we see here, until the next generation of gaming, if you went with a PC it will be cheaper in the long run.
Contention 2: Mods
Mods ads tons of hours of gameplay to games that are already really awesome. Skyrim, for example, is just a much better exprience on PC due to the countless amounts of mods one can add to make the gameplay much better and more desirable. Since Consoles can't realistically have mods, this one should go to the PC.
Contention 3: Backwards Compatibility
The Current consoles are not backwards compatible. Can you play a PS3 game on your PS4? Nope. On PC, you can play even a game from 2000.
Contention 4: Performance and Graphics
I understand that graphics aren't everything. But they sure are better on PC. But more than just graphics, the performance of a PC (meaning Framerates and smooth gameplay) is much greater. Playing every game at 60 FPS on Ultra settings is a great joy. The PC's performance simply destroys the consoles. There's simply no other way to put it. And since the PC would be cheaper than the consoles in the long run, there is absolutely no reason to get a console if you are looking for the best performance.
Contention 5: Exclusives
Now, this argument can be used both ways. But there are more PC exclusives than Console ones. PC even has specific Genres that will never make it onto console like MMORPG games and MOBAs. The PC also features a lot of indie games. Although this can be taken both ways because there are many Console exclusives, there are more PC Exclusives than all of the consoles combined.
Contention 6: E-Sports
While E-sports definately exists in the Console world, the E-sports of Mobas such as League of Legends or Dota 2 and FPS games like Counter Strike: Global Offensive are much bigger and are much better organized. Call Of Duty championships on Console may be big, but it doesn't compare to the world of e-sports on PC.
In the long run, you pay less for a system that can do so much more performance wise, has more exclusives, backwards compatibility and mods, and has a better e-sports scene. Thus, I urge you vote Pro in the debate.
Good Luck to my opponent.
First of all, I'd like to indicate that since there is a round for rebuttals, I haven't read Pro's arguments at the time I'm typing my round, so that I don't get tempted to refute one of them. So, let's get this show on the road.
First things first
I will list here the consoles I will be using: PS4, Xbox One, Nintendo 3DS, PS Vita, WiiU. Also, I'd like to specify I will be adressing the largest community possible, for both PC and consoles.
Argument 1: Overall price based on specs
I know this argument could have been seperated into two, but I believe both pricing and specs are intertwined when deciding on what to buy.
What many gamers and customers in general look at first is the pricing. Now, while I'm not an expert of PCs in general, I know enough to know what specs you would need to have an average and high-quality time for gaming(I have been considering lately to get a PC for gaming, so it's still fresh).
I will take as example Intel processors, as I'm not knowledgable enough on graphic cards to make a personalised PC.
It is commonly accepted that in order to do gaming on a PC, you need at least an Intel Core I3. Anything underneath, and you don't have enough power to run most games nowadays, aside of low-demanding games such as LoL and a couple Steam games. You would also need around 4 GB of RAM, if not 6 nowadays. And that's just for an average-quality gaming experience. If we check some of the main retailers for PCs(I will be taking some of my country and a few international ones), we can see the average price for an average-quality gaming session clock in the range of the 400-600 euros(1)(2)(3)(4)(note that for non-portable PCs, I'm counting in the price for a monitor, and I will be doing the same thing for consoles). We know that for a high-quality gaming session, you'd need to spend more money into higher equipment.
Now, let's take a look at the consoles. First, I'll be listing the pros of the high-quality consoles, aka PS4 and Xbox One(also because these two do basically the same job when it comes to games, only difference being exclusive titles).
We know for a start that both PS4 and Xbox One have 8 GB RAM. Something that would qualify for a high-quality gaming PC. Both consoles possess an 8-core(from what i've heard of, it makes the console rather powerful, and most PCs have a max of 4 cores, and sometimes 6) AMD 1.60 GHZ CPU. That alone tops most of the processors comprised in the average-quality PCs. You'd you get all that for 349 euros for both consoles(5)(6)(it should be noted that the price for the PS4 acts on bundles, and so the price for the console alone is cheaper). Add in a decent monitor/HD TV, and you get an average price of 450-500 euros, for much higher specs than what's avaliable on the PC market.
WiiU, Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita are at a much lower price for different kinds of games(which I will adress in a further argument), although by the standard definition of gaming, the only game on any of these consoles that come to mind is Smash Bros. But I'm digressing.
The price for WiiU bundles are at 300 dollars(7), adding in the price of a screen we get to 400-450 dollars. Now, onto the portable consoles.
Nintendo 3DS XL has a price of about 200 dollars(8), add in a game(Pokemon Alpha Sapphire as an example), and you get about 240 dollars(9).
Same thing for the PS Vita(10)(using Resident Evil Revelations 2).
I haven't listed the specs for the WiiU/Nintendo 3DS/PS Vita because they aren't meant to be comparable to PCs, as they're not supposed to be high-quality gaming. WiiU itself, while being the most advanced of the 3, is largely behind the PS3 and Xbox 360 when it comes to specs.
So, to make a resume, this argument upholds that consoles have better specs than PCs for a same average pricing.
Argument 2: Game variety
This is one of the most widely accepted arguments whenever talking about PC vs Consoles, and I'll bring my own take on this.
When coming to triple A games(such as Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc etc...), PCs and Consoles are tied, as the PSN, Xbox Live and Steam are pretty much equivalent.
However, you can't play all types of games on PC. The one I'll be the most refering to here are family games, which means PS4 and Xbox One are pretty much out of this argument, and I'll be mainly focusing here on the WiiU, Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita.
These three consoles display the most variety in games out of all the consoles. On the side of the WiiU, it has an advantage that PC(and other consoles such as the PS4 and Xbox One) cannot hope to compete with: family games, or just fool around games.
While the WiiU's interface and accesories(mainly the Wiimote) facilitate grandly the genre to emerge, you can't possibly imagine playing at a family game such as Nintendo Land or Just Dance on a PC. It's just not possible. I won't be making the case about the Kinect, because Nintendo is still the most advanced on this one. Next, we have handheld games inpersonated by the Nintendo 3DS and the PS Vita.
Here too, PCs can't hope to equal not only the variety of the games, but their format too. While you can play a console everywhere(in your living room/bedroom with a big console, or at school or anywhere else with your handheld console in your bag), you can't play a PC game everywhere, even with portable PCs. And, the same argument for the WiiU can be used for the handheld consoles: their types of games aren't just suitable for PC.
While the gameplay in itself could be used on PC, I will only make the case on what is and what is not right now. You won't find any version of a mainstream Pokemon game outside of the Nintendo 3DS, whether it be on PCs or other consoles.
It's a genre that belongs solely for handheld consoles, and is designed for it, and is a serious disadvantage for PC gaming.
One thing PC has over consoles at my knowledge is Flash, and thus the ability to plays Flash games. But, let's be honest here, Flash games pale in comparison to the mainstream company-manufactured games sold on consoles and Steam, and couldn't weigh in the balance for PC gaming.
Argument 3: Fun
I'm making this section only to tell that this point isn't possibly debatable, as this matter is totally subjective to the customer.
Hoping for lots of rebuttals to get around the totality of the subject ^^
I thank my opponent for his argument. Now, I will rebut to his case.
Argument 1: Price
I have argued extensively in my first round about the price issue. I have shown clearly that even if you were to pay 1,000 dollars for a PC (which would be a very powerful machine), it's still going to be cheaper in the long run. C
Consoles themselves are sold at a loss. The hardware of the consoles is sold at a lower price than what it would be if you were to build a PC with the same specs. So how can the companies make a profit? Why is it "cheaper"? Simple. Companies like Microsoft and Sony have complete control over the ecosystem and market of their own Consoles.
Allow me to explain a little further. Sony and Microsoft both have complete control over every game that ever reaches the PS4 and Xbox One. They have complete control over the online service. And with all of this control, they are able to charge their customers higher prices for things that are just much cheaper on PC.
Take for example the pricing of games. Console games are almost always 60 dollars. Yes there are exceptions here and there, but for the most part, every game is going to be 60 dollars. This is because Microsoft and Sony know that you can't get this game anywhere else. A PS4 system will only work for a PS4 game. And since Sony knows that there is no other place you can buy it, you will fork up the 60 Dollars. They make a profit this way because I promise you that they aren't making a profit off of just selling the consoles.
Look at playing online also. It costs $50 on PS4 and $60 on Xbox One to play online mulstiplayer. Everyone gamer today is going to want to play with friends and enjoy a multiplayer expireince. And Microsoft and Sony both know this. They charge you money, and they know that you'll pay. There's no way out of it.
By maintaing a complete monoply over everything around there ecosystem with the higher priced games annd paying for multiplayer, you end up seeing that an after 1 generation of gaming, you actually would have paid just as much as you would have with a PC.
The thing about a PC is that it's an open-ended platform. The sales that Steam has isn't just because Valve is a nice company; it's because there is competition in the market. It's basic economics; the more competition in a market the better it is for the consumer because we are able to choose from a variety of different products. Steam has to compete with Origin, Uplay, Good Old Games, etc. There is an actual market when it comes to PC, and that's why games are signficantly cheaper. And from the beginning, PC has always had dediccated servers. PC gamers never pay to play online.
Microsoft, at one point in time, released what they called "Games for Windows" with the hope of breaking into the PC market. They charged money to play online and the service miserably failed. Now, Microsoft sticks to its console. It just couldn't break into the PC market where everybody else was offering free ways to play multiplayer games.
I had already proven that PC's were cheaper in the long run in my last argument, so I tihnk it's useless to go through the math again. from round 1, we can see clearly that a PC will be cheaper than a Console with SIGNIFICANTLY better performance.
Argument 2: game variety.
My opponent aregues that you can't play family games on PC. Well, this is somewhat true. But what about the genres that never rmake it onto Consoles?
Take for example strategy games like Civilization 5. What about MMORPG games like Final Fantasy XIV or Guild Wars 2. what about MOBAs like League of Legends and Dota 2. What aobut point and click games liek Torchlight 2 or Diablo 3? What about Indie games that simply couldn't make onto a Console or made it onto console years after PC support and the PC version is much better (i.e. Minecraft, Terraria, Faster than Light)?
My opponent also argues that there are generes not on PC, and this is true. But there are a lot more generes that aren't on Console. It will come down more to personal preference, but the ability to play family games is not that much of a plus for your average gamer. Playing something League of Legends or Civilization 5 is so much more rewarding and fun. There are a lot of exclusives on PC as welll that make the platform really nice and can only be played on PC because of the keyboard and mosue support PC has.
Now, about the claim of playing on a couch. Theoretically if you were to move your PC and connect it to your T.V. via HDMI and turn on Steam big picture mode, you can sit on yoru couch and play. Furthermore, you can use any type of controller you want. However, it's a fact that PC's aren't portable. You arne't going to be able to take them to your friends house.
However, I would quickly like to adress that with Steam Family Sharing, you can share games to friends on your Steam Friends List, and if you go over to your friends house, they will be able to play the games you own.
Ok, this is just the subjective idea of having fun. And I have a lot of fun on PC. I hope the judges realize all the benefits of PC and hope that they find PC Gaming more fun as well.
Hoping for a good round of rebuttals =)
In this round, I will be exposing my rebuttals for Pro's second round. My fourth round will serve for counter-rebuttals of Pro's third round and eventual counter-rebuttals of Pro's fourth round if Pro is ok with it. Let's get going.
Rebuttal 1: Price
First, the Xbox One and PS4 aren't at 400 dollars/euros, reason and source provided in previous round.
Also, I'd like to mention that Pro here assumes all gamers are rich/in a cosy financial situation, both in his mention of PC and consoles.
While I don't deny his calculations make it cheaper in the long run buying a PC rather than a console, I will say that these calculations are adressed to a very restricted group of gamers who can manage to afford that.
Now, we all know that at least 80%(average guessing, but more than 70% is a certainty) of the gaming community is NOT rich enough to afford 5 games a year, yet alone on a "beast" 1000 dollars PC.
Two thousand dollars/euros in the span of six years is just too much for most of the community, who has only money for two-three games a year, and these include birthday/christmas presents that you don't pay.
I know what people are going to say to me: "Get a job"? As I already mentioned earlier, I'm adressing the largest community possible, whether it be on PCs or consoles. And that includes people who are too young to legally have the right for a job and are entirely dependant on their parent's financial situation in order to play video games.
Besides, for most people, even getting a job wouldn't cut it. Interferences such as taxes, food, water, electricity, internet, family, etc... are costly, and don't leave your average gamer much money or time to afford/play games.
The only ones who would be able to afford 5 games a year on a 1000 dollars PC woud be those who play video games as their job, and even then, I doubt most of them would have enough money to afford all that.
5 games a year doesn't sound like much at first, but when expanded on Pro's conditions, you can clearly see where the problem is: in retrospective, it would mean you would be able to afford in 6 years a 1000 dollar PC, it's insurance, and no less than 30 games, while affording you other life payments mentioned earlier.
A gamer will usually settle on a maximum of 10 games(and I'm being generous here) for a whole generation of consoles. For a grand maximum of 10 games per generation, you will get in 6 years:
PS4: 1309 dollars(on a basis of 349 dollars the console)
Xbox One: 1309 dollars(on a basis of 349 dollars the console)
Wii U: 900 dollars
PC: 1400 dollars
We notice that finally in the long run(length of it provided by Pro), PC is actually the most expensive of the 4, by a measly 91 dollars.
Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita are not worth mentioning as their price is ridiculously low compared to the aforementioned four.
Rebuttal 2: Mods
Console games do actually have mods, hence making Pro's claim invalid.
Far Cry 4 would be the best example of it.
I think sandbox games should be counted to, as their gaming mechanics are similar to mods. Hence, I will be mentioning GTA V for PS4 and Xbox One.
This one could go either way "realistically", as I believe it just comes down to if the mods manage to keep a large community of players on the game, and so it all depends on which game.
While I admit that Skyrim is one of the best known games for it's mods, it doesn't however make any other game irrelevant, whether it be on consoles or other PC games for that matter.
Rebuttal 3: Backwards Compatibility
Once again, Pro's claim is false. Both Sony and Microsoft have established some form of backwards compatibility, the most prominent and well know being Microsoft's backwards compatibility system from the Xbox 360 to the Xbox One, announced during this year's E3. Sony has Playstation Now, a downloading platform allowing you to play PS3 games on PS4 in a digital version. While Sony has shown it's progressive disinterest in backwards compatibility(removal of PS2 backwards compatibility on the later version of PS3, no PS1 backwards compatbility on the PS4 who had untlil now been a constant of Playstation consoles), it's not wise to claim right now that it doesn't have anything planned in the future, especially after Microsoft's sensational reveal who made the Xbox One backwards compatibility one of the most heated topics of this year's E3. As for WiiU, it has always and still is backwards compatible for both Wii and GameCube games. Nintendo DS games can be played on Nintendo 3DS, and PS Vita has no backwards compatibility for lack of a previous console generation to backwrads compatible to.
Rebuttal 4: Performance and Graphics
Here too, Pro is adressing himself to a small community of gamers able to afford very high-quality PCs. This point is void when related to the first rebuttal.
Rebuttal 5: Exclusives
Now this is a tricky one. Making a list of exclusives of each platform would be just too long, and would surely not fit the character limitation of this debate. However, as far as I know, PC exclusives aren't legion. PS4 and Xbox One's either. WiiU, Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita on the other hand... Nearly all WiiU games are exclusive to the WiiU, the only exceptions being actually portages from other consoles(such as the Call of Duty franchise, as one example). Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita games are completely exclusive to their respective consoles. And by combining the total exclusives of WiiU, Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita, we most certainly crush in numbers the total of PS4, Xbox One and PC exclusives, so this point should logically go to Consoles. Also, I'd like to quote:
"PC even has specific Genres that will never make it onto console like MMORPG games and MOBAs."
Pro interestingly has had the same idea as I did with family games. Except that I have examples to disprove this claim. Let's start with the easiest one: MOBAs. All I need to say is one word: Smite. Available on PC AND Xbox One.
Next, MMORPG. Consoles do have MMORPGs, an example being Final Fantasy 14: Online(available on PC, PS3 and PS4).
Indie games can be found on the PSN, while I'm not sure if they can on the Xbox Live.
Rebuttal 6: E-Sports
While I can't deny the popularity of LoL/DOTA 2 E-Sports, I believe Call of Duty E-Sports rae more popular than CS:Go E-Sports. Most console players know the existence of Call of Duty, but don't know what CS:GO is. Most PC players on the other hand, know of both. While I don't know if CS:GO is underrated(topic for another debate), it dfinitely isn't as popular as CoD in general, and in particular E-Sports wise.
That will be all, good day to Pro and the viewers. ^^
KingDebater369 forfeited this round.
Well... Too bad it had to end this way. I extend all arguments, and will be doing my counter-rebuttals of Pro's round 3.
Counter-rebuttal 1: Price
Pro has interesting statements here, about Sony and Microsoft's business policy. However, I feel that's a topic for another debate. This debate argues about whether it would be better from a customer point of vue to go for PCs or consoles, not marketing tactics. Hence, I will only be rebutting the point Pro was getting at, being his calculations from round 2 to prove PCs are cheaper in the long run than consoles while having much better specs, and I've disproven these calculations in my first rebuttal of round 3, rendering this rebuttal void.
Counter-rebuttal 2: Game Variety
The case of MMORPG and MOBA's being on consoles or not has been covered in my fifth rebuttal of round 3.
Now, strategy games. You took Civilization V as your example. While I ackowledge there aren't many strategy games like the Civilization franchise on consoles, it's not a valid reason to say that they don't exist at all. Albeit there are only a handful of games on current-gen, there have been a few on last-gen. One in particular stems from the very same francise you took an example of: Civilisation Revolution, available on PS3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo DS(has been released for IOS and Windows Phone, but it isn't important information for this debate). Another one worth mentioning has actually been released for the PS4, PS3, Playstation Vita and Windows: Nobunaga's Ambition: Spheres of Influence(1)
As for point-and-click games, I assume you're referring to titles such as Monkey Island, because Diablo 3 if I recall correctly is a MMORPG. It's not because you mainly use a mouse in a game that it's classified point-and-click. There's actually lots of point-and-click games on consoles, which I will only be refering to a couple. The most popular of them are undoubtly the TellTale franchise of games, such as The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us. Yes there are QTE's, but that doesn't take out the genre out of it. One more is one that can't be denied with as to it's genre: Murdered Soul Suspect. It exists on PS3/PS4, Xbox 360/Xbox One and PC.
Indie games go both sides, although in this case, PC gets the point not because of Steam, but because of Flash. If we go solely by Steam, then PCs and consoles are pretty much tied when it comes to indies.
Pro argues that the ability of playing family games is more of a personal preference, and then contradicts himself one line below by saying playing something such as LoL or Civilization 5 is more rewarding and fun. If it's personal preference, then family games can be as rewarding and fun than games such as LoL or Cvilization 5. It's all a question of mentality.
I've adressed the exclusives topic in my fifth rebuttal of round 3.
I have nothing to say about the "playing on a couch" argument, as Pro seems to agree with my point of vue.
Counter-rebuttal 3: Fun
Pro here tries to twist the argument to his advantage by doing exactly what I've established as not possible. The only reason I've brought the argument up in the first place is to prevent Pro from coming up with things such as:
" I hope the judges realize all the benefits of PC and hope that they find PC Gaming more fun as well."
Fun is entirely subjective, and SHOULD NOT be a argument/proof/point whatsoever under any circumstances when debating/voting on this kind of debate. For not acknowledging that concept, and trying to use a "tabu" concept in this debate, I suggest this matter should be put into consideration when judging about the Conduct point when voting, and penalise Pro.
There have been a few dropped arguments Pro failed to adress during this debate, which are:
-everything I said about the Nintendo 3DS and the PS Vita, save for the mobility point.
-the very weak influence Flash games have to weigh in the balance for this debate
I don't think people see that kind of section often, but I feel like doing this to ease the voters job. I will be listing the arguments I made Pro has officialy conceded to me:
-Family games can't be played on PC, and thus give an advantage to consoles in that regard
-Consoles are far more mobile than PCs are, been able to play pretty much anywhere at any time.
With all this, I come to the conclusion that consoles are better than PCs in general from a random customer's point of vue. It has been a fun debate, Pro has provided lots of good arguments to ponderate on and possible future debate topics, and I thank Pro for that. Good luck to Pro in the voting session, and vote Con ^^
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.