Cost: Console Gaming vs. PC Gaming: A Simple Look

This is something I've been thinking of doing for a while - with some inspiration from Chewxy, of course. What costs more? Console gaming or PC gaming? First, a list of assumptions:

1. The gamer is an ethical person - who pays for every single game they play. No piracy. 2. The gamer pays for everything in US dollars - and is not subject to shipping costs. The gamer buys all his PC components from newegg.com and all his games from play-asia.com. 4. The gamer needs a PC capable of doing rudimentary tasks. The basic computer a gamer will have at the minimum have is something I thought on Dell.com to be reasonable - costing USD400. (basic Dual Core E2160, which I think is more than enough for most day-to-day work) 5. The gamer buys games using Metacritic as a guide - buying half of all games rated 90 and above at full price, and a fifth of all games rated 80 and above and preowned prices (say 50% of the full price). The gamer ignores all other games. 6. The gamer doesn't buy a display or sound systems. Why? Most people who build a computer or buy a console will just use their existing display/TV. If anything, they'll get more utility from the TV, since they'll use it for something besides the computer, that is, ordinary TV (unless you don't watch TV o_O). 7. The console will be purchased at the beginning of the first time period, and after that, everything else is bought at the end of the year. Why? Most games are bought at the end of the year (Christmas period), and my discount rate is small enough for the effect to be small.

Console assumptions: 1. The console will be bought new at the current USA RRP. 2. For both the XBox 360 and PS3, we assume the owner bought Rock Band last year. (why? because this helps account for extra accessories console owners buy) 3. Wii is being ignored (since it costs so much less and there are so few good games). 4. The console will last six years. 5. In the last year of the console's life, you buy 25% of the games you would otherwise - by this time a new console has replaced it - and it should be getting its last batch of usually critically acclaimed games. 6. The gamer upgrades their console's hard drive halfway through the console's lifetime. 7. The XBox 360 gamer pays for XBox Live Gold every year. 8. The gamer pays for 2 arcade games every year at USD15 each. (This is in addition to those games he/she bought.) 9. The console owner pays for a second controller. 10. A new game costs USD60.

PC assumptions: 1. The gamer only buys what is needed above the normal day-to-day computer, meaning - a good processor, a good motherboard, good RAM, a good graphics card - and a good sound card (yeah, that's practically rebuilding the whole thing, so I'll just build a whole computer with the money and minus USD400.) 2. The gamer WILL upgrade that computer 2 years down the road, and buy a new computer four years down the road. The upgrade will consist of more RAM and a new hard drive. (Although you usually need a new graphics card, I'll let that pass.) 3. In the last year of the PC's life, you buy 25% of the games than you would otherwise - because your computer can't play all of them well, so you just buy what you really want to play. 4. The PC gamer gets console arcade equivalents free. Yay! 5. The PC gamer pays for a controller with analog sticks. (I was never one for struggling with FIFA, and this nullifies that second controller most console owners buy.) 6. A new game costs USD50. (Assuming the game costs USD10 less on a PC, which seems to be the trend.)

Results from some assumptions: Using Metacritic as a guide, there's as many PC games in the highly rated (8 and above) category as with the consoles. Ah-ha! Surprising considering the amount PC games sell (which if you haven't noticed, is pretty sad sometimes, even with a 9.0 rating).

If I were to use myself as an example, even I know the problem with that - I buy and play far less PC games than I do console games every year. And I do buy games I like regardless of whether I could pirate them or not.

The result is that the gamer will buy 10 games a year. Nearly one game a month - reasonable if you ask me. (Unless you aren't a gamer, then you don't have to read this to know which is the cheaper option when it comes to gaming.)

I'll be using Net Present Value analysis using a discount rate of 7% p.a. Why? Because that's a nice round number close to the interest rate in Australia - and I assume gamers don't invest in the stock market, but in hardware and games alone. LOL.

The analysis will be over a six year period, and will use half the computer cost the second time round (since it only has to last half the time - note that you are still spending the $400 every 4 years - it's just that some of it went towards better components). (I know it's not correct to judge projects are different lives like this, but I don't really want to explain how the 'right' methods work, and why they're right.)

The XBox 360 console gamer:

Initial cost: Console: USD350 Accessories (Rock Band, maybe): USD250 Hard drive upgrade in 3 years: USD100

Annual cost: Games: USD420 XBox Live: USD50

The PS3 console gamer:

Initial cost: Console: USD400 Accessories (Rock Band or others): USD250 Hard drive upgrade in 3 years: USD100

Annual cost: Games: USD420

The PC console gamer: Computer:

Intel C2D E6750: USD200 (No Wolfdales on the list, so I went with a Conroe and added USD10.) ASUS P5K (P35 chipset): USD130 nVidia 8800GT: USD240 Western Digital 500GB: USD100 OCZ Platinum 2GB kit: USD50

If you're like me, you'll reuse your old case, old drives, old sound card, old mouse and keyboard and old power supply unit (I got a dual rail 500W PSU).

Total: USD720 - USD200 (to account for me reusing certain components plus the adjustment from the mandatory PC that you'll need anyway) Upgrade in 2 years: AUD150 New computer in 4 years: USD255 (half, since it'll has to last half the time)

Annual cost: Games: USD350

What do I get? The cost of gaming on an XBox 360 over 6 years is: $2635.94 The cost of gaming on a PS3 over 6 years is: $2447.61 The cost of gaming on a PC over 6 years is: $2313.58 The cost of gaming on a PC (with an $10pcm MMO) over 6 years is : $2885.57

Surprising, ain't it? PC gaming does in fact cost less! Why? Games cost less. If the annual cost is constantly lower, so does the cost of ownership, even if the initial investment is higher. However, a lot of PC gamers play MMOs - while it would be flawed to say they still spend the same on other games, a lot of my assumptions are faulty. Games sell a lot less on the PC than they do for consoles, which probably means that either there's a lot fewer PC gamers, or just that PC gamers buy less games. I know that I buy fewer PC games than console games and I play much fewer PC games than I do console games, and the number of MMO players on PCs are undeniable - and it easily follows that a console's cost per game is actually lower.

However - it is interesting to note that the difference in cost of gaming is mostly in the Rock Band controllers. However, if play a wide variety of games, you'll understand how important immersion sometimes is. Otherwise, the cost of gaming on either a PC or an XBox 360 or a PS3 is similar - and the PC wins in the cost department if you play the same amount of games on each.

There will be another post after this - I intend to make a comparable calculation for the Wii (and its numerous accessories) and make an analysis of my own theoretical expenditure per console.

Note: Leaving for Australia on the 28th night. Will be back in Australia on the 29th! Update: Edited a few things here and there for rambling. I'll update with a post using the proper method later, and who knows, we might get a different result!

Realisation of Where I Wanted to Go With the Fantasy of War

A few weeks ago, after playing Devil May Cry 4, I realised where I wanted to go with the combat system. I was looking for a system in which both player skill and knowledge, together with the player character's own growth in skills and statistics would lead to the battle system I was looking for. I had already established that every battle had to be its own instance a very long time ago. While I'm obviously sticking in a 2D world (since 3D worlds are out of any single-person development team), I realised that DMC had hit that spot that I wanted - and I now had some vision of what I wanted.

I wanted timing to be part of the equation, variety of attacks, real time tactics, relatively unique enemy behaviour, a difficulty increase not just by number of enemies - but numbers of certain kinds of enemies. To get this kind of system working well, limits of peculiar kinds have to be set - which Fantasy of War is highly suited for. The game has need for growth, but not that same kind needed in an RPG - but one needed for something like DMC. This also revealed that my experience block system was perfect for Fantasy of War, not Sword Fantasy.

The concept of experience blocks was originally so that it could be easily reallocated between statistics - but I now find that having them reallocatable between skills as well as statistics - could be a real interesting system of tradeoffs. Having them freely move about in an RPG was grossly impractical and unfair, but having them move about - when there is a limit to how many of these blocks you can have around - and more skills and statistics than you could possibly buy, with plenty of unique and different battles - leads to what I believe is a very flexible system that's loads of fun.

That being said, there is a very good possibility of me suspending Sword Fantasy to pursue this new battle system. And so begins the Fantasy of War.

The Wonkiness of Bias

I'm probably among the biggest culprits of being biased. You can probably see it all over my blog. I think. Why I am biased: I spare no popular game I don't like serious criticism. Final Fantasy XII is a good example. I hate the game. I have no idea how it earned so many honours by doing NOTHING well. It wasn't fun, the story was bad, and it was draggily long. I couldn't even go past five hours on it. That being said, I could easily and happily play what most review sites call an 'average' game - .hack//G.U. I can spend hours on Dynasty Warriors and Ninety-Nine Nights just because I find it fun.

I cannot for the life of me see why people like Zelda. It still hasn't clicked, and probably never will. Why is it fun? I don't know. There's just obviously something I'm just grandly missing. I think I just have this dislike for platformers. Okami didn't charm me, and neither did Super Mario Galaxy. I know they were good, but not that good. Maybe I'm just too much of an old-school gamer.

Why I might not be as biased: Even consoles I own don't escape criticism. I hold no true favouritism over any console just because I own them. I badly want the Wii to crash and burn. I like my PS3 over the XBox 360 because I can run Linux on it. The PSP just beats the DS because the PSP is just that much better of a handheld device. I switched to Windows Mobile because Palm OS was just too archaic for my liking. Just because I own the console doesn't mean I have any interest in it being successful. It just means I have an interest in games that are already out for it - the GameCube is a good example.

Graphics are nothing to me if there's no gameplay. Even if I could play Crysis at maximum settings, I'd still give it a 6, at most. Crysis' level design was poor and the ease at which one could lose their way despite having a minimap was appalling (don't even get me started on the interface and gameplay). I'll happily trod through Disgaea and Atelier Iris, and shelf away any of the PS2 Final Fantasy games. I'd play Ninja Gaiden Black while immersing myself in Folklore. Command and Conquer: Red Alert is still fun despite everything looking like sad blocks of pixels now.

Why I might be biased: Graphics still do matter. Now that UT3 nearly matches the pace I'm used to from Quake 3, it's probably no turning back. While gameplay occasionally does trump graphics, it's difficult for me to see myself going back to playing Freecell XP after playing Freecell Vista or Dynasty Warriors 5 after Dynasty Warriors 6.

(I wanted to say more. But writer's block hit again. Dammit.)

Devil May Cry 4 Review

This was due a long time ago. As the demo had already confirmed, DMC4 stays true to the formula in Devil May Cry 3, with numerous boss fights and focus on dealing boatloads of damage while not taking those same boatloads of damage yourself. Among the most popular (or notorious) features of Devil May Cry 4 is its difficulty, so I'll be covering that first. It goes without saying that Devil May Cry 4 is significantly easier than DMC3. I'm not sure if it's because the bosses are easier to kill, the bosses' attacks are easier to dodge, or because the controls in DMC4 are that much tighter. But, on Devil Hunter (Normal) difficulty, it goes without saying that it's a lot easier than DMC3's normal. The fact that four bosses repeat themselves along the way probably doesn't really help up the difficulty much.

As most reviews have said, the difficulty is kinda like a bell curve. It starts easy, and then gets really difficult (Dante is a b*tch to kill) and then it gets pretty easy again. Do bear in mind however, that part of this is actually attributed in an increase to the player's own skill and the player character's repertoire of moves (which you can purchase as well as mix and match along the way). For example, when you fight Berial, Echidna and Bael/Dagon for the last time, it's as if they became minibosses somewhere along the way. A quick jump back to the beginning of the game confirms that it's your skill and character that have gotten better, not that the bosses have gotten easier.

That being said, being able to play Devil May Cry 4 depends heavily on the growth of your own skill as well. While I was able to just run through the game without stopping (having played the previous 3 games before - yes, I forced myself to finish DMC2), it's likely a good number of people will get stuck somewhere. (for example, when the demo came out, a lot of people were whining about how they couldn't kill Berial)

The graphics look excellent, and it seems we've finally come to the point where cinematics of the past (think Final Fantasy VIII) are now completely executable in real-time graphics. Shadows are low quality however (it seems that the game developers and I see eye-to-eye on how shadows aren't quite that important) and can look rather weird. It's rarely a problem since you're usually too busy killing the enemies and watching the green meter on the top right side of the screen (the portion with the combos).

Most people will likely complain about the variety of weapons available to you. The main character, Nero, only uses one sword and one gun (and one arm - come on, you can't switch arms) throughout the entire game where he is the playable character. When you do get to play Dante, however, you only get a choice of 4 melee weapons and 3 ranged weapons. Not really much of a choice, if you ask me. (Although yes, Pandora is several weapons in one.) Of course, if you recall, this was roughly the kind of armament we saw in the first game - and considering this is kind of a reboot for the series, and the uniqueness of each of the weapons, I'm very very pleased.

While you don't get to choose which character to play for a given level, each level is designed to cater for the individual characters, and since a good amount of geographical locations are replicated between levels for the two characters, it's more like getting the choice, just that it's now compulsory to switch characters during the course of the game.

Since Dante can now switch between the five styles at will - things got a lot more interesting. Three unique weapons, five fighting styles. Dante deals significantly more damage than Nero. You'll find yourself taking down the four bosses a lot faster than you did with Nero. The downside? Style upgrades are expensive - and you'll find yourself usually short of Proud Souls to level up everything.

Talking about Proud Souls, I like the new system. It allows to you to reallocate your skills purchases at any time you come into contact with a divinity statue (I still like calling them God of Time statues, actually). If you need to switch out your loadout of skills - you can. Don't need that Charge Shot for this level? Buy something else. Need to get that Trigger Heart for the boss battle? Disable those unneeded Gather More Orbs and Speed upgrades before the boss battle so you have more Devil Trigger to kick ass with. Some people may dislike it, but I love the new system. (This is especially true for Dante, since you'll find yourself reallocating Souls between styles often. It's kinda a different way to force you to stick to more or less one style most of the time.)

While earning Proud Souls is no easy task - you are given the flexibility to grind. That's right - replay those easier levels to get those Proud Souls you need. When you start over in a new difficulty, your characters stay the same as they were before. Even if they aren't supposed to have Devil Trigger yet, they do - just like in DMC3. Having problem in a certain level? Get those few extra skills, health bars and DT gauge bars for the additional edge you need against that boss.

The game is now way more accessible to new players and is still filled with what you've come to expect of DMC - difficulty that keeps you on alert (although now much easier than DMC3), abilities you have to buy, Devil Trigger and full control of your character - even in the air (even the weak storyline is there XD). I'm extremely satisfied with the game, and it will likely keep me entertained for months to come.

I'd say it's a must buy if you own either an X360 or PS3. (Note that replay value may be greatly decreased if you do not enjoy repeating levels on higher difficulties or just to get a higher score - which I enjoy immensely. Now that my hands don't ache as much, off I am to finish off Son of Sparda mode.)

Note: As a hypothetical score, I suppose, with my bias, it deserves a 9.5 out of 10. Why not 10? DMC3's choice of weapons and characters way outclass this one - but there are very few games that are this addictive to me. If I were in Australia when this came out and it wasn't so close to Chinese New Year, I would've finished it the first day it came in one sitting. (I had to play in three sessions over 2 days due to the circumstances.) There isn't any other game out there on any of the three new consoles that I can say I would do the same. (Even Call of Duty 4, Halo 3 and Bioshock never reached that level for me.)

Guitar Hero 3 PC Impressions

I managed to finally, after some wrangling around, get a copy of Guitar Hero 3 for PC. What do I have to report? For one, the XBox 360 controller works perfectly fine with the game - yes, this includes the new GH3 wireless one. Problems? I've finally come to see what all the reviews that complain talk about. The lag. Not really so much the lag, more the unstable frame rate. The game doesn't actually lag, but the frame rate is unstable. Why? Because the camera moves around so much. When you are at a spot with little bling-bling to render, it plays real smooth (exactly like the console versions). When the camera zooms out, then suddenly the frame rate lowers a little - and your notes start going slightly out of sync.

If the only version you've played is the PC version, then there's a very high likelihood you won't notice. On my dated computer, it took me a while to actually pinpoint the problem. The frame rate is unstable - and the video lag calibration doesn't help. When I do a video lag calibration on the PC, I get 40-70ms, of which the correct correction is zero - which points out to me, the frame rate is somehow unstable - even on the calibration screen. When I do a similar calibration on the XBox 360, it will always return me 0ms. (I use a computer monitor as my HD display, so no surprise there.)

And if you've played the console version, you'll find yourself missing some strange notes at different times in random places. That being said, once you get used to it, it's not really a problem - it still is Guitar Hero. Of course, if you plan on hitting all of those hammer-on sequences in Through the Fire and Flames, then it's probably time to get a new computer.

The only way I can think of that Aspyr can fix it, is to add an option to fix the viewpoint. Sure, it'll be boring, but it'll get rid of the annoying unstable frame rate that can really screw with your eyes.

Since I have no way to be sure whether or not it runs smoothly on a newer far more powerful computer, I'd have to recommend against buying it, and sticking to one of the numerous console versions. If you don't have a console, then chances are, you shouldn't be playing Guitar Hero anyway.