Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by randomdrake 4360 days ago
Beautiful execution and a well-done site. Nice visual choices and a good responsive layout. Great example of waiting until a product has some polish before a Show HN.

Yesterday, Forbes did an article[1] about how console gamers are moving towards PC.

I think you could really knock it out of the park if you capitalized on that trend and added a portion of your site for folks looking to migrate. Something that shows how specs from different sets of cheaper hardware could mimic and beat the console they may be trying to migrate from. Perhaps something with a bit more of an educational front to it.

You could even go as far as video demonstrations showing how the performance of a $400.00 PC from your service could rival or beat a console.

There's a big trend/meme on the Internet right now regarding the "PC Master Race"[2] that I think you could explore for some inspiration, if you haven't. The trend started a few years ago[3] but has started to pick up more and more.

You may even find some great success with a section specifically for building customized, beautiful "Steam Boxes"[4] that are starting to appear more and more in living rooms in place of consoles.

[1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/07/14/the-c...

[2] - http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/

[3] - http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-glorious-pc-gaming-master-...

[4] - http://gizmodo.com/13-steam-boxes-ranked-1496078448

5 comments

> $400.00 PC from your service could rival or beat a console.

I recently got the itch to buy the Xbox One. I had the 360 before it with the Kinect and it was a passable party game machine, but I usually game on an old-ish desktop that maybe I've invested $600 in over the past four years. i5, 7000 series AMD card, 8gb ram, etc. Seems to handle any modern game I can throw at it.

With a copy of Watchdogs that Xbox turned out to be almost $700. Um, sure Watchdogs was fun, but having both just feels extraneous at this point and if I wasn't beyond my return date I'd just get rid of it. Just the price of games alone is rough. With Steam I can usually find a deal, but for console games I'm expected to usually pay full price, usually with the understanding that I'm also subsidizing my console's low price. How is $700 with one game low? You can almost make two mid-range gaming PCs with that if you're frugal enough.

That said, I'm sure it'll be great for multiplayer and kinect games, but with powerful PC hardware being so cheap, it does feel like a rip-off as console prices haven't really fallen in line with PC prices.

On the plus side, it has impressive fit and polish, the media tv stuff is nice, xbox live is well done, and even though the kinect is optional now I really hope they continue to develop games for it, preferable another Star Wars game on the new hardware. I'm hoping I get 5 years out of this system to depreciate the big one-time cost.

I'm just surprised there isn't a competitive $199 console out there. Even if it was semi-disposable (say every 24 months a new model with faster innards) it would still be worth it. I can get a Nexus 7 for that much. Its incredible I can't get a dedicated gaming machine (sans display, sans batter, etc) for around that much. Consoles are starting to feel like those old Texas Instruments calculators that cost the same amount and have the same exact features as the ones sold 20+ years ago.

You can get a last gen console (XB360, PS3) for what, $100 or less used/refurbished or $200 or less new? If someone never had that console, it's comparable with a lower end PC playing "last gen" PC games. And a good deal of console exclusives that never get ported to PC.

Buying a new console < 1 year after release is the equivalent of buying a new $1K+ gaming PC with a top-of-the-line video card.

I bought a used Xbox 360E, which is a really nice console, for $140AUD in almost unused condition. I felt that while there are stacks of games that are coming out that I want to play (Titanfall!) the simple fact is most of those games are also released on the 360. So, I saved hundreds of dollars for an experience that is good enough for me. I'll buy an Xbox One in 12 months time, when the price has come down and a games library has built up for it.
Gaming segments are weird. Console gamers generally pay 'full price', PC gamers generally want to pay half that, and mobile gamers have trouble with the concept of shelling out double digits.
and mobile gamers have trouble with the concept of shelling out double digits.

They make up for it by pouring insane amounts into pay-to-play sinkholes such as Clash of Clans.

> I'm just surprised there isn't a competitive $199 console out there.

Well, there's the Ouya, which is a nice little platform. You can get one an second controller and most of the games available for that price point :)

Specs and SDKs at https://www.ouya.tv/develop/

hth, adric

He said "competitive." The Ouya is dead.
[citation needed]
> PC Master Race

Please don't perpetuate this inane meme. It is needlessly inflammatory and would probably alienate a healthy portion of your target market.

You say that, but you forget what the target market for gaming rigs actually is.

I game pretty extensively as a hobby but I also hold a serious 9-5. While I don't call people homophobic slurs and scream "oh my god no scoped" and all that, I can appreciate and keep up with the typical gaming attitudes in the market these days. To be honest, I look at gaming as a different persona and snap in and out of him at will; a few close folks in that circle of mine know what I actually do, but to them I'm just another "lol rekt" dude. Just like you'd expect some things out of a typical HN user, I expect some things out of a typical gamer. I also balance that with calling out the less-desirable portions of that culture, like homophobia, racism, and sexual harassment, when I can.

The master race thing is a tongue-in-cheek exercise which really, as a couple other folks have pointed out, has a more subtle message. If you allow yourself to be alienated by things that other folks find humorous -- and it's totally within your right to not find it humorous, by the way, I'm not saying that -- you're just going to have a bad time, that's all.

Gaming and the culture around it is not something to be taken seriously. Even e-sports have an element of insanity. To be entirely honest, I look at master race and calling console users "plebes" as the gaming generation getting older and discovering there's another one right behind them, and that one likes Call of Duty on Xbox and Minecraft. Really, though, you'd be hard pressed to find someone on either side who takes that sort of thing seriously. At the end of the day, we're all gamers doing what we enjoy.

Perpetuating the meme is perhaps unwise (and alienating as you pointed out).

That aside it is worth pointing out the advantages of a proper computer over cut down entertainment devices. Especially in a format that lets you customize and meet a certain price point.

Shame it's not easy to have comparative benchmarks against console hardware at this time, despite the newest generation being effectively x86 hardware we have no means of comparison due to the platforms being too locked down.

>That aside it is worth pointing out the advantages of a proper computer over cut down entertainment devices.

Sure, but calling console players 'plebes' probably isn't the best way to do it.

Agree, hence why I said drop the meme but keep the finer points. :)
In video gaming discussion inflammatory = good
Isn't it better to have passionate users who love using your service along with haters that love to hate you as opposed to having a market that just kinda likes you. That said you can tone down the nazi-ism while having dog whistle trigerring http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics with something like PC Master Build or PC Uber Class (I'm not in marketing but there's something that works in there).
I don't think I would characterize the reaction "Those PC gamers are really off-putting and I do not wish to associate with them" as "I just love to hate PC gamers."
As counterpoint a lot of the comments in this very discussion are on the distaste or appreciation of the concept of PC master race. Clearly it is a subject that gets people talking.
It seems as if the console makers have delivered developer friendly platforms this time but with that forgot to / decided not to pack in that extra punch they used to.

I'm talking about things like those sprite optimized graphics controllers when 2D still was king and the tightly integrated 3D chips later on (when consumer PCs were doing 3D exclusively with the CPU) - and let's not forget all those esoteric but very powerful CPU architectures (e.g. Cell processor).

This "PC Master Race" mentality has left a sour taste in my mouth. It is a joke to a few but it is starting to become serious (weather they refer to it as PC Master Race or not). Most arguments are made by technically unqualified enthusiasts on subjects like architecture, performance, and cost effectiveness.

I suppose the reason I'm bitter is because I'm constantly being told (online and lots of PC enthusiast friends) that my choice of gaming hardware (a console) is vastly inferior to a PC. Choosing a gaming platform is not a 100% performance to cost optimization problem.

Well, it really is technically inferior to a gaming PC. And I say this as somebody who owns several consoles and does not own a gaming PC. In making that choice, I had to accept that I would get less power than a PC user, at least for most of the console's lifespan. I use a console because that's what I'm comfortable with and it lets me play with my friends, not because I want to be at the cutting edge of gaming technology.
One thing the "master race" seems oblivious about is how owning a desktop computer has become a lifestyle choice. Many people have no need/desire to have a computer desk and office-style chair and a large screen in front of their face. (Perhaps it seems too much like work?) While not strictly "technical", the size/space/noise is a big disadvantage to PC gaming. (Although admittedly there are things like SteamBoxes.)
Would it shock you if I told you you can hook it up behind or under your living room TV, use a wireless mouse/kb/remote and use xbox controllers?
No, because I addressed that point with the reference to Steamboxes (or MediaPCs or whatever other name they have.)
I don't see your point how it's any more a lifestyle choice to have a (bigger) TV for your console.

Playing games on my 360 in the living room takes up a lot more space than the desk+chair in the other room.

And yes, I hardly use the living room, actually more often for games than watching TV or movies.

There are more axes to gaming quality than simply polygon performance. You have to be specific about what is superior.
I really can't name any technological aspect in which consoles are more powerful than a PC. That's kind of the point I was driving at.
The secret power of consoles is that the hardware doesn't change over the course of the console's life in a significant way. If I buy an XBox 360 on ebay, I know that ANY xbox-360 game will run on it. In contrast, PC gaming is a mess of compatibility questions.

If I want to play the new Wolfenstein, or Watch Dogs, or any "new" game, chances are my 2 year old PC will not be able to run it well (unless I spent $$$$ on it, rather than $$). If I want to play a new game with all the dials turned up to 9 (or 11), I basically expect to spend $1200-$1500 on a new PC every two to four years.

If I look at OLDER games, it's even worse: Will this game even install? I have a giant library of games which I would love to play, but I can't figure out how to get them to run on a current version of Windows. (Sea Dogs, Starfleet Command 3, etc.) These games are ten years old, and I can't even get the installers to run correctly -- or if I do, the game crashes for other "win 8 >> Win XP" reasons. I would pay money _again_ to be able to play some of these games in a reliable way (and have re-bought things for Steam), but most of the time they're not supported anymore.

My Wii will still play Windwaker (11 years old), and I can buy an XBox and any copy of Halo and be pretty confident that it'll run, even if ten years old (assuming the hardware hasn't failed).

I can guarantee that if you spend $1000 on new PC today, you'll be able to run all games at console quality for at least next 3-4 years, almost all in the next five years, and then still most of the games beyond that range. You'll also be able to run any of the thousands of games that have already been released on PC, a feat no console is able to do.

I bought my PC 3 years ago for around that much (in country with higher import cost and higher sales tax, so it would cost 700-800 dollars in the US), and I encountered only a single game that refuses to run smoothly at all times (Mirrors Edge).

If I want to play the new Wolfenstein, or Watch Dogs, or any "new" game, chances are my 2 year old PC

My 5-year-old PC, which was nice at the time, hasn't hit a problem yet, with the exception of some games from the 90s. How many console games from the 90s does the XBox 360 take?

If I want to play a new game with all the dials turned up to 9 (or 11)

That's an unfair comparison, because the XBox most certainly, most definitely, and most absolutely does not have 'all the dials turned up to 9', let alone 11. The simpler, coarser graphics on the xbox are a common meme that's made fun of.

That is true, and it's one of the reasons I like consoles. There is just no thinking required, which is really nice.

On the other hand, I think the rate at which PCs obsolesce compared to consoles is often exaggerated. For example, I played Bioshock Infinite at max settings on my circa-2010 MacBook Pro, which was 3 years old when the game came out and was never exactly a gaming machine. And people with fairly mediocre PC setups are able to play Watch Dogs with better graphics than I get on my Xbox One.

More powerful? No. But they are still better in some ways:

* No DRM. I have been burnt several times by PC games on this front.

* No viruses or malware to worry about

* Far fewer updates to install and in general less maintenance

* Warranty - if I build a PC myself and it breaks, I need to fix it (I recognise that for more technical users and/or people with more time, it's a plus that you can fix a PC yourself - but that isn't everyone)

* Compatibility. It's hardly rare to run into issues if you try to play a PC game on launch date, and often graphics card driver updates fix some games and break others.

* Noise and size (it's hard to make a small quiet and powerful PC on a budget)

* Peripherals - there is a standardized set that "just works" for a console. On the PC, maybe half of my Steam library supports my controller out of the box.

And one non-technical aspect which isn't a concern for everyone, but is for many:

* My friends are all on [XBox Live|PSN] and I want to play with them

My stance? I game on PC, PS3, PS2, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS, iPad, and occasionally on an Android phone. They're all great in their own way. I wouldn't say any of them was better than all of the others on all axes I care about - but if pushed to have just one, I would pick the PC.

* No DRM. I have been burnt several times by PC games on this front.

True, sometimes drm is an issue. To me drm hasnt been an issue for quite a few years.. I think it was with the last game I bought a hardcopy of. If you are talking about the gaming services everyone has different views on different vendors. It can be argued that the need for the console itself, created by a single manufacturer with sole control, is drm in itself.

* No viruses or malware to worry about

If you dont click suspicious banners or run spam executables you wont run into viruses (If you are a legit customer, if you download from piratebay or similar you can only blame yourself). I have been an active gamer most of my life (31 years old now) and I think I ran into my last virus back in windows xp.

* Far fewer updates to install and in general less maintenance

So you live with bugs for longer? Must suck... The awesome thing about pc gaming is that whenever you log on some issue you had in the past might be gone. Updates are there to improve your gaming. If you are talking about your OS, you forget that your computer is not just a game station, it is also a tool. The updates are there to keep things running smoothly.

* Warranty - if I build a PC myself and it breaks, I need to fix it (I recognise that for more technical users and/or people with more time, it's a plus that you can fix a PC yourself - but that isn't everyone)

If it breaks, call a repair guy. I refer again to my point about the computer not being a dedicated gaming platform.

* Compatibility. It's hardly rare to run into issues if you try to play a PC game on launch date, and often graphics card driver updates fix some games and break others.

What does launch day have to do with compatibility? I have never suffered not having up to date drivers if a high profile game using some weird functions not covered by previous drivers is about to be released. Again, I am an avid computer gamer.

* Noise and size (it's hard to make a small quiet and powerful PC on a budget)

No its not. Have you tried? It is cheaper to make a powerful and noisy computer, but silence is not super pricey, ya see. Your little console is partly built with pc components, so you should be able to create an equally powerful machine with the same noise level for just about the same price.

* Peripherals - there is a standardized set that "just works" for a console. On the PC, maybe half of my Steam library supports my controller out of the box.

Not every game uses a kinekt. Not every game uses a joystick. I have a pretty beat up x-box clone gamepad, a cheap joystick and a track ir at home. Never had any issues with them. For most games I prefer the keyboard tho so this might be a bigger issue for others.

And one non-technical aspect which isn't a concern for everyone, but is for many: * My friends are all on [XBox Live|PSN] and I want to play with them

And there we get to the meat and potatoes of your post. You game with your friends, all your friends are on other platforms, so you do as well. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with it. You shouldn't listen to the hype that tells you consoles suck. They don't. They have points about them that are very valid (ease of use, portability, instant gaming). Just dont buy into the hype and use arguments made by 12 year old youtube jockeys to make your point. You do not need to excuse your gaming habits. Just go play, its fun.

Agreed. I love my PS3, and have a PS4 as well. I don't have a gaming PC, because I'm completely happy with the games that are released on consoles, and don't have the interest in building a gaming PC. The games I like are released for consoles first, and often aren't released on PC at all, and when they are, it seems like a lot of times they are just shitty ports.

Console provides the best experience for me. Anyone that tells me differently is simply wrong, because it's subjective.

It annoys me too, but for a different reason.

I've been a PC gamer since far before it was "popular". So I have obviously always preferred it. Nothing has really changed in the arena of PC gaming vs Consoles in terms of the actual differences between them, but now all of the sudden everybody's jumping on this bandwagon.

The same people who said Halo revolutionized multiplayer gaming are the ones spamming about "PC Master Race" now. (Not trying to pick on Halo in particular, but I use it as an example because I feel there were many PC games released before it which provided the same or better multiplayer FPS experience)

I agree. These PC/Console flame wars have been going on since the beginning of the internet. To say that either is "superior" is pretty meaningless, you can argue why one is better in certain respects, but in the end declaring one to be better than the other is totally subjective.
It is interesting to look at the history, where the original "flame wars" were Arcade vs private gaming. Pong was an arcade game, and then it was a thing you could plug into your TV, arcade machines (the 'consoles' of their time) got better, and personal computers got better (they fed off the same technology eco-system after all). Then 'consoles' which were nearly as good as the Arcade machines but not as good as full blown computers, but they were cheaper than full blown computers. And then the C64/Atari campaign where they could be "a console AND a computer" and then the Amiga which was better than Consoles of the day and a computer, which inspired other computers (PCs mostly but some Macs) to get better, which nearly wiped out Console sales, until Sony dropped the PlayStation on the scene which was as good as a much more expensive PC, and then Sega and Nintendo fought back and upped their 'console' game with the Jaquar and the Game Cube, except 3Dfx has just put out a really cost effective 3D accelerator card and now PCs jumped ahead fast, and Consoles needed to sell for a long time to make up their costs (money was made on software not hardware) so the rapid evolution of 3D hardware gave PCs an edge as people swapped out video cards and then motherboards with faster and still faster video 'slots', and now the consoles were way behind, except they could still be cheaper than the high end PCs, and now a lot of the performance changes relative to games has flattened and ever since the Xbox where Microsoft showed you could essentially repackage a PC as a console, well the differences have become shallower and shallower.
Thanks for the summary, my video game knowledge doesn't go back that far, haha. I agree though that the differences between consoles and PC's are starting to blur. For that reason I'm rooting for SteamOS. I think it won't be an easy transition, because gamers are so entrenched in their ecosystems, but I would love to see the strengths of both platforms together and do away with some of the old principles the gaming world is holding onto.
Yesterday, Forbes did an article[1] about how console gamers are moving towards PC.

A contributor, essentially using Forbes as a blog platform, claimed that. The article is a baseless fluff piece pandering to an audience.

I really believe that the whole contributor model has seriously undermined Forbes' already strained credibility: Endlessly people attribute these often specious claims to the magazine itself.