Console Gaming VS PC Gaming - Visuals

[CrimsonKnight13]

i dont know what your talking about either. most games can run on a 8800gtx fine at very highs ettings except crysis at 1080p res

what games do you struggle on?

I don't struggle with any... as I said. It's all about pushing the limits beyond the normal settings...

 

[pigwalk]

My personal reason, is CRT HDTV looks like ass on a PC. Overscan is another nuisance. Will games running at 1920 on a nice LCD HDTV look softer and less jaggy than on a nice LCD dcreen?

 

[kumquatsrus]

wow, these kind of threads always turn into tf2 pyros trying to flame each other. the pc and the current gen consoles will always have pros and cons to them. pick your poison or enjoy both pc and console platforms like i do, particularly for the exclusive titles. besides, the op was asking about visuals between the two, and cited an example of cod4. in the case of a multiplatform game, the best pc hardware will always provide better visuals than a 360 or ps3. gears of war, grid, mass effect, etc. look better on pc than on console, assuming a decent monitor is used. and yes, far cry 2, fallout 3, and grand theft auto 4 will look better on pc. so if graphics are all you care about, then stick with pc. let's not waste time turning this into a debate over convenience, ease of use, controls, flexibility, customization, etc. as for lans, the last one i went to lugging around my heavy ass pc and monitor, most of the time was not spent playing games, but people trading files (music, movies, etc.) ...fun!

 

[speedy523]

wow, these kind of threads always turn into tf2 pyros trying to flame each other. the pc and the current gen consoles will always have pros and cons to them. pick your poison or enjoy all platforms like i do, particularly for the exclusive titles. besides, the op was asking about visuals between the two, and cited an example of cod4. in the case of a multiplatform game, the best pc hardware will always provide better visuals than a 360 or ps3. gears of war, grid, mass effect, etc. look better on pc than on console, assuming a decent monitor is used. and yes, far cry 2, fallout 3, and grand theft auto 4 will look better on pc. so if graphics are all you care about, then stick with pc. let's not waste time turning this into a debate over convenience, ease of use, flexibility, customization, etc. as for lans, the last one i went to lugging around my heavy ass pc and monitor, most of the time was not spent playing games, but people trading files (music, movies, etc.) ...fun!

yeah that why i have all the systems and a good pc. i like the visuals on a pc, but i play x360 and ps3 with my friends online since there parents won't let them buy a nice gaming pc. also, when friends are over, the console are much better for overall fun, but for just me playing, i like the pc, except i expect a little more than is possilbe even with the best hardware and its always fun when people are like your computer is freaking awesome! i also like pcs more since its more freedom and enjoyment, and you can add your own custom touch to it

 

[noobman]

They do look better on a PC at this point. Basically, consoles look better for only a short while. The reason is consoles actually get their hardware technology from PC accelerators. It should be no surprise that nVidia and ATi don't spend the money to develop a whole different kind of technology just for consoles.

Basically what happens is the console maker approaches them and works out a deal to get hardware customized for their new console. This involves things like making it use integrated memory, hitting specific thermal targets, etc. Generally, the timeline is such that it is a pretty high priority delivery, and beats the PC part to market by a little bit.

So, when a console first comes out, it can be more powerful than anything you find in the PC space. However, that doesn't last. The console's hardware is never upgraded in terms of capabilities. So it isn't long before the equivalent PC part comes out. Sometimes it even happens first, like in the case of the PS3 and nVidia 7900. Because of the PS3's delays, the 7900 launched before it got to market.

Then there's the simple fact that PC hardware keeps trudging along. The graphics companies always want more of your dollars, so they keep rolling out new hardware. Thus this hardware will be farther and farther ahead of the consoles.

Makes sense. I mean I spent $400 on a graphics card. Just a graphics card, that's not the system to support it. You can get a 360 for less than that, the whole deal. Not only that, I will be able to spend that $400 again next year and upgrade, if I wish.

PCs cost a good deal more, at least if you want to keep up with the new tech, and thus they do end up looking better as you'd expect.

In general, when a console first comes out, they look as good or better than even high end PC. However, by the time a new one is getting ready to come out, even lower end PCs are better.

I don't think this generation of hardware ever boasted a visual advantage over PC games.

 

[Shadowhaxor]

I don't think this generation of hardware ever boasted a visual advantage over PC games.

It hasn't and thats the bottom line. Hell, I tricked my friends in this aspect a few days ago. I hooked my PC to my TV and hooked up a Xbox 360 wireless receiver to my pc. I then proceeded to run GRID on my PC and then shut of my PC monitor. I then had my friend play a few games of GRID (he didn't know it was running on a PC since he was setting on a couch far away from the PC and playing on a Xbox 360 controller). So after a while I got him to start trash the PC for gaming and finally after not being able to stop laughing I told him to look at the Xbox..... you should have seen his face. He's like, how am I playing this will the Xbox off, until I turned my monitor back on. I then loaded up the demo of GRID and had him compare, PC killed the Xbox version.

Just goes to show......

 

[Hamidxa]

I agree with the above.
Consoles dont hold a candle to PC image quality and resolution.

Ditto.

Should we even have to state the obvious though...

It hasn't and thats the bottom line. Hell, I tricked my friends in this aspect a few days ago. I hooked my PC to my TV and hooked up a Xbox 360 wireless receiver to my pc. I then proceeded to run GRID on my PC and then shut of my PC monitor. I then had my friend play a few games of GRID (he didn't know it was running on a PC since he was setting on a couch far away from the PC and playing on a Xbox 360 controller). So after a while I got him to start trash the PC for gaming and finally after not being able to stop laughing I told him to look at the Xbox..... you should have seen his face. He's like, how am I playing this will the Xbox off, until I turned my monitor back on. I then loaded up the demo of GRID and had him compare, PC killed the Xbox version.

Just goes to show......

 

[Volcanon]

They did have a graphical advantage over affordable hardware for a short time, but PC gaming is a moving target that moves at about 500 MPH, catching it is a fools errand.

PCs will always be more powerful

 

[kllrnohj]

Consoles are much much cheaper than PC's.

I have to disagree with this point. Consoles are usually more expensive than PCs. As you said, you can buy a 360 for less than the cost of a 4870X2, BUT everyone I know with a console ALSO has a PC. Take the cost of a cheap PC (say, $500), toss on $200 (less than the cost of a 360) for a 4850, and suddenly you have a powerful gaming rig. It won't set any records, but it'll smoke a console. Factor in the fact that games are more expensive on a console + all the accessories that have huge markups, and that "cheap" console isn't so cheap.

 

[jimbo6846]

I have to disagree with this point. Consoles are usually more expensive than PCs. As you said, you can buy a 360 for less than the cost of a 4870X2, BUT everyone I know with a console ALSO has a PC. Take the cost of a cheap PC (say, $500), toss on $200 (less than the cost of a 360) for a 4850, and suddenly you have a powerful gaming rig. It won't set any records, but it'll smoke a console. Factor in the fact that games are more expensive on a console + all the accessories that have huge markups, and that "cheap" console isn't so cheap.

The cost of that PC in your example is $700, which is more expensive than any console.

 

[cannondale06]

The cost of that PC in your example is $700, which is more expensive than any console.

well I look at like this. I need a pc anyway so I could buy a $400 pc or I could spend a little more to get one that is decent enough to game on. so a $700-$800 pc is the same as having a cheap pc and a console. factor in the hundreds of dollars I save buying pc games over console games and it is actually much cheaper to game on a pc. Im not saying cost is the most important issue but people saying that pc gaming is more expensive dont know what they are talking about.

 

[Mr. K6]

The cost of that PC in your example is $700, which is more expensive than any console.

If you've bought a PC within the last two years, all you have to do is throw in an HD 4850 and you have a good gaming machine, and one that far surpasses any console. That's what, $150? Cheaper than any console out there, nevermind the games are also cheaper as well. If you want to say "you have to include the price of the computer as well," then you also have to include the price of the TV with the price of the console. This debate has been argued many times, and it turns out that unless you build a really uber machine, the costs aren't much different.

 

[Dethred]

Unlike the 360, my PC won't die after year, and I can do other stuff on it. I remember when COD2 came out, and was on the new 360... I literally went into Compusa, and noticed tons of differences between playing it on my 7800GT and the 360. The NPC skin textures weren't as detailed, the sandbags weren't as detailed, etc, and that was just the demo level and a brief look at the game.

 

[kppanic]

No, consoles are better looking when they first come out

Also unless you plan on spending heaps on a top end rig, console graphics hold up for quite a while, probably a year or so after release. Look at oblivion, people say it was held back on PC visuals because of the consoles... but when it actually came out you'd have needed an awesome PC to get graphics better than the xbox 360 which was a fraction of the price of your uber PC.

Yeah that's why I said you can get a console for a price of a high end PC video card. You forgot to quote that.

 

[kppanic]

I have to disagree with this point. Consoles are usually more expensive than PCs. As you said, you can buy a 360 for less than the cost of a 4870X2, BUT everyone I know with a console ALSO has a PC. Take the cost of a cheap PC (say, $500), toss on $200 (less than the cost of a 360) for a 4850, and suddenly you have a powerful gaming rig. It won't set any records, but it'll smoke a console. Factor in the fact that games are more expensive on a console + all the accessories that have huge markups, and that "cheap" console isn't so cheap.

You can't say "everyone that I know" as an argument...

You won't be able to have a decent gaming experience on a $500 rig, no matter what parts you pick.

I don't know, but where I live - Toronto - all games, consoles or PCs, are all $60. I don't know of any other "accessories" that an average console gamer would need over an average PC gamer.

 

[kppanic]

If you've bought a PC within the last two years, all you have to do is throw in an HD 4850 and you have a good gaming machine, and one that far surpasses any console. That's what, $150? Cheaper than any console out there, nevermind the games are also cheaper as well. If you want to say "you have to include the price of the computer as well," then you also have to include the price of the TV with the price of the console. This debate has been argued many times, and it turns out that unless you build a really uber machine, the costs aren't much different.

Usually the price to pay for such products would be the amount you would have to shell out from your wallet, take it home, open it, plug it, and then play it.

If you were missing a decent TV and needed to buy a TV than that would no longer hold as a "console vs pc price" argument. To use the same argument against you, imagine your two year old PC needed not only a 4850, but a new power supply, a new CPU, a new motherboard and a new RAM. See where I am going with this?

 

[Hamidxa]

You can't say "everyone that I know" as an argument...

You won't be able to have a decent gaming experience on a $500 rig, no matter what parts you pick.

I don't know, but where I live - Toronto - all games, consoles or PCs, are all $60. I don't know of any other "accessories" that an average console gamer would need over an average PC gamer.

Of course you can have a decent gaming experience on a $500 *base* rig -- he was saying that the $500 rig does NOT include the price of say an HD 4850 tacked onto it already.

So, for the $650-$700 total, you can assemble a PC that will surpass any console in gaming capabilities without breaking a sweat.

And yeah, nearly every single household in America (http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/762233.html) and throughout most of Europe owns a PC (not counting the hundreds of millions elsewhere). So yes, you can say everyone I know when statistics indicate that nearly 100% of all households in America have at least one computer. Furthermore, there are over 1 billion PC's in circulation throughout home across the world, and over 300 Million *NEW* PC's purchased just last year alone (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSDEL19097620080813).

Even if only a fraction of those have PCI Express slots (as most of those new ones will, both last year and the 300 Million or so sold this year), then all the end user will need to do is slap a $150 card into their $500 rig to have a gaming PC capable of outclassing any console on the market by a noticable margin.

 

[Mr. K6]

Usually the price to pay for such products would be the amount you would have to shell out from your wallet, take it home, open it, plug it, and then play it.

No crap, that's what you do when you purchase any item. What's your point?

If you were missing a decent TV and needed to buy a TV than that would no longer hold as a "console vs pc price" argument. To use the same argument against you, imagine your two year old PC needed not only a 4850, but a new power supply, a new CPU, a new motherboard and a new RAM. See where I am going with this?

The point is a two year old PC + 4850 would dominate any console on the market, and at a fraction of the cost of buying a console. Some people like to make the argument that if you consider the cost of the whole PC and the graphics card (HD 4850 in this example), it would cost more, but my point was that it evens out in the end. And no I don't see where you're going with this because you have yet to make a point.

Of course you can have a decent gaming experience on a $500 *base* rig -- he was saying that the $500 rig does NOT include the price of say an HD 4850 tacked onto it already.

So, for the $650-$700 total, you can assemble a PC that will surpass any console in gaming capabilities without breaking a sweat.

And yeah, nearly every single household in America (http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/762233.html) and throughout most of Europe owns a PC (not counting the hundreds of millions elsewhere). So yes, you can say everyone I know when statistics indicate that nearly 100% of all households in America have at least one computer. Furthermore, there are over 1 billion PC's in circulation throughout home across the world, and over 300 Million *NEW* PC's purchased just last year alone (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSDEL19097620080813).

Even if only a fraction of those have PCI Express slots (as most of those new ones will, both last year and the 300 Million or so sold this year), then all the end user will need to do is slap a $150 card into their $500 rig to have a gaming PC capable of outclassing any console on the market by a noticable margin.

Well said .

 

[kppanic]

Of course you can have a decent gaming experience on a $500 *base* rig -- he was saying that the $500 rig does NOT include the price of say an HD 4850 tacked onto it already.

So, for the $650-$700 total, you can assemble a PC that will surpass any console in gaming capabilities without breaking a sweat.

And yeah, nearly every single household in America (http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/762233.html) and throughout most of Europe owns a PC (not counting the hundreds of millions elsewhere). So yes, you can say everyone I know when statistics indicate that nearly 100% of all households in America have at least one computer. Furthermore, there are over 1 billion PC's in circulation throughout home across the world, and over 300 Million *NEW* PC's purchased just last year alone (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSDEL19097620080813).


Even if only a fraction of those have PCI Express slots (as most of those new ones will, both last year and the 300 Million or so sold this year), then all the end user will need to do is slap a $150 card into their $500 rig to have a gaming PC capable of outclassing any console on the market by a noticable margin.

Indeed, I agree 100% with the statistics. But the number also arises from the fact that computers are now almost an essential item in most households. You can do much more than gaming with a computer. That is why the number is really high.


Mr. K6. Lets go back to the OP. Strictly speaking of GAMING, consoles are cheaper than PCs, cannot argue. The cost of buying a console vs buying a PC is a very obvious yet a critical factor in this argument that you chose to ignore. Good for you if you bought a HD4850 on a two year old computer to boost performance. The point still stays: if you were a gamer and had neither systems, and you saw your buddy play CoD4 and you wanted to play, which would you buy? (CoD4 because it is a comparable gaming product in both platforms.)
READ the title before you go out and try to tell everyone that you made a smarter choice by buying an HD4850.

Want me to use your own reasoning against you? Lets say I have a two year old PS3 (which they really are at this point) and no computer. I want to play CoD4. Ignore mice/keyboard vs gamepad issue at this point. I just want to play CoD4. Would it be cheaper to go out and buy a $60 Bluray CoD4 or shell out $650-700 for a new computer system? Your argument is one sided and is very juvenile.

 

[kllrnohj]

I don't know, but where I live - Toronto - all games, consoles or PCs, are all $60. I don't know of any other "accessories" that an average console gamer would need over an average PC gamer.

PC games here in the states are $40-50 at launch, and the price drops quicker than the console brethren. Accessories like XBox Live account, microphone, extra controllers, etc... On the PC side of things you can usually find them cheaper (for example, a $20 controller instead of a $60 controller, or a $5-10 mic, etc...). PC accessories also have sales and clearances pretty frequently, console ones very rarely do. I'm not saying its a major difference, but it does add up over time, thats all Hell, I own a Wii + 2 wiimotes + 2 nunchucks + 2 gamecube controllers + gh3 controller + rockband set + extra rockband guitar. I've sunk tons of cash into my Wii and I love it. I'm not anti-console by any means, just saying that the PC isn't more expensive as is often claimed.

Indeed, I agree 100% with the statistics. But the number also arises from the fact that computers are now almost an essential item in most households. You can do much more than gaming with a computer. That is why the number is really high.


Mr. K6. Lets go back to the OP. Strictly speaking of GAMING, consoles are cheaper than PCs, cannot argue. The cost of buying a console vs buying a PC is a very obvious yet a critical factor in this argument that you chose to ignore. Good for you if you bought a HD4850 on a two year old computer to boost performance. The point still stays: if you were a gamer and had neither systems, and you saw your buddy play CoD4 and you wanted to play, which would you buy? (CoD4 because it is a comparable gaming product in both platforms.)
READ the title before you go out and try to tell everyone that you made a smarter choice by buying an HD4850.

Want me to use your own reasoning against you? Lets say I have a two year old PS3 (which they really are at this point) and no computer. I want to play CoD4. Ignore mice/keyboard vs gamepad issue at this point. I just want to play CoD4. Would it be cheaper to go out and buy a $60 Bluray CoD4 or shell out $650-700 for a new computer system? Your argument is one sided and is very juvenile.

No, no, no. You can't do a price comparison of two products and assume you already own one, that doesn't work. Your first point contradicts what you say after it. The choice is basically gaming PC (~$700) or console+budget PC ($500 pc + $250-500 console, depending). Of course, if you factor in that the person might not have a TV, a console becomes much more expensive than a PC - but we are assuming people already have a TV (since statistically speaking they already do). Likewise, we assume people already have a PC (for the same reasons as the TV). Thus, the price comparison then boils down to the cost of a graphics card to upgrade the budget PC (that they already have) to a gaming PC (since Core 2 rigs w/ 2-4gb of RAM are fairly common for budget PCs) vs. the cost of a console.

Thus, a gaming PC is cheaper overall than a console (both in terms of upfront cost and TCO). Of course, there are times when this isn't the case (such as if the person wants/needs a laptop instead of a desktop, and thus doesn't already have a desktop), but your arguments just don't work. At all.

 

[Voiceofid]

i am pretty sure you answered your own question, counsole graphics chips are now behind, compare to the graphic chips of the pc, i remember someone said the nvidia chip in the ps3 is compariable to a geforce 7000 series card, with the current generation cards bounds and leaps ahead of the geforce 7000, i don't think it's even a comparison

 

[Mr. K6]

Mr. K6. Lets go back to the OP. Strictly speaking of GAMING, consoles are cheaper than PCs, cannot argue. The cost of buying a console vs buying a PC is a very obvious yet a critical factor in this argument that you chose to ignore. Good for you if you bought a HD4850 on a two year old computer to boost performance. The point still stays: if you were a gamer and had neither systems, and you saw your buddy play CoD4 and you wanted to play, which would you buy? (CoD4 because it is a comparable gaming product in both platforms.)
READ the title before you go out and try to tell everyone that you made a smarter choice by buying an HD4850.

Want me to use your own reasoning against you? Lets say I have a two year old PS3 (which they really are at this point) and no computer. I want to play CoD4. Ignore mice/keyboard vs gamepad issue at this point. I just want to play CoD4. Would it be cheaper to go out and buy a $60 Bluray CoD4 or shell out $650-700 for a new computer system? Your argument is one sided and is very juvenile.

I'm sorry, but you're going to either have to learn some basic reading skills or I'm not going to continue wasting my time plodding through your quagmire of an argument.

Mr. K6. Lets go back to the OP.

The OP asked if games looked better on a PC or a console (and it was decided that PC dominates, it's not even a question), so I have no idea what you're talking about.

READ the title before you go out and try to tell everyone that you made a smarter choice by buying an HD4850

The irony here is so thick it would drown a small child, take your own advice.

How come in your fantasy world the subject doesn't have a computer but DOES have a T.V.? How about in my fantasy world the subject works for Dell and gets a brand new computer for free every 6-months? OMG THATS NOT FAIR!!1!!! Let me repeat this for the third time and maybe you'll finally understand it: when arguing price points you either consider everything or nothing, not what you see fit to make yourself think you have a better point.

Strictly speaking of GAMING, consoles are cheaper than PCs, cannot argue.

Show me some numbers then. Remember that PC's already look and perform better, I wonder how much of a kicker it would be if they're cheaper too .

Want me to use your own reasoning against you? Lets say I have a two year old PS3 (which they really are at this point) and no computer. I want to play CoD4. Ignore mice/keyboard vs gamepad issue at this point. I just want to play CoD4. Would it be cheaper to go out and buy a $60 Bluray CoD4 or shell out $650-700 for a new computer system?

Here comes that fantasy world again where you try to make yourself believe you have a point. You notice how Hamidxa used statistics to back up the point? How many people do you think own a PS3 but not a computer? The real world makes it so difficult to make inane arguments.

Your argument is one sided and is very juvenile.

Coming from the person who doesn't even read the thread he's posting in nor can make a single, concrete argument. Fantastic.

 

[Thannatos]

I have to input maths into this.

A decent CPU will last 6+ years in the gaming world (not latest and greatest, but if 720p of current consoles is the min graphics setting to keep a comp vs console argument....).

That's just about 2 console cycles.

High end pc to keep pace for 6 years:
cpu = $315 (q9450)
mobo = $200 (p45 or 750i ftw)
ram = $80 (4x1 gskill ddr2 800 easily oc's to 1066mhz @ 5-5-5-15, or 950 @
4-4-4-12)
hard drive = $60 (160gb is mf cheap, and if you really need more than
160gb for gaming, you are one weird person)
psu = $120 (BFG 800 W, onsale for $80 now, but i'll be generous)
dvd drive = $20 (light-on rules, and that's a burner no less)
keyboard = $10 (just get a cheap one....sheesh....)
mouse = $50 (get an awsome laser mouse, do it!)
graphics = $600 (get great mainstream card twice over the years.
This is overkill to outpace a console, but why not....)

Total = $1455

Consoles over 6+ years (assume 2 cycles):

launch price = $800 (2x$400 each, usually more, I’ll be gernerous)
controllers = $180 (3x$60, you play with your friend’s right?)
hdmi cables = $40 (we don’t want standard def!)
batteries = $288 (4x12x6, you gotta be kidding me,
f’in xbox controller won’t even last a month….
this is generous @ best for wireless controllers)

Total = $1348 (who the hell said comps are more expensive?)

Let's assume 1:1 console:comp game purchases, with a new purchase every 2 months. Last I checked, average xbox360 game was $60 and pc was $50.

6x6 = 36 x 50 = $1800 for comp.
6x6 = 36 x 60 = $2160 for xbox ($360 more, lol poetic justice)

Comp Total = $3225
Console Total = $3508

Well, look at that. Not only is a pc more customizable, upgradable, and will look a ton better, it costs less….. Let’s not forget xbox live runs you $15/mo (why do i have to pay for a 2nd internet connection = rip off) + arcade game dl’s you can generally get for free on pc.

Consoles are fun, but don’t try to tout them as sure win over a pc.

 

[kppanic]

Mr. K6, I don't know why you are so fixated on the fact that you cannot compare prices like that... Imagine you were out in the market for a gaming platform. Even looking at console launch prices, they were still cheaper. If consoles were upgradeable and if I could plop in a better video card than a 7800, what would you do?

Thannatos, I see your prices comparison, but six years is a very very long time in the industry... For my defense, I bought a PS3 at launch for $599, two games for $59 each, and it came with one controller. I didn't need to buy anything more, no battery changes, no headset, no mic, no keyboard, free online play, no nothing. System wise, I paid $600. You could not have bought a gaming system two years ago for $600, no way in hell. Oh and you forgot to count the prices of a case, it would be a sin to leave that CPU mobo and GPU out in the dust.

I pay $15/month for Lineage2, AoC and LOTRO, and paid $60 for each game to purchase.

P.S. we've got to assume that when you buy a console you got a TV... Or I am going to start to argue that Thannatos didn't include a monitor price in the calculation, or I could even go as far as saying that anyone can hook up a console to an LCD monitor. And I am not sure why Thannatos included 3 extra controllers? It would be nice to bring friends over and play CoD4 on a console but then I could have bought 3 more PC's and do the same thing at my place.

 

[defiant007]

Explain to me why you can't hook a PC up to a TV?

Playing on a 1080P 42" LCD screen console jaggies are significantly noticeable.

 

[RyanLucier]

All these arguments are TOTALLY off by a mile.

The PC has two real downsides... Price and selection.

+ positives +
Size: PC's are available in very small cases, OR large.
Power: No question, faster PC's are available then consoles, by quite a wide margin.
TV hookup: TV's can hook up to TV's. More than one in fact.

- negatives -
Price: PC's can be comparable to consoles for the same price, but for the most part, dollar for dollar, consoles offer a better experience for the dollar.
Selection: PC's have more games on the market, but honestly, PC's are slipping in terms of their stranglehold of the market they used to have, and most of the exclusives are moving to consoles now, not PC. But RTS's and MMORPG's are still primarily dominated by PC's.

Other than that, every single argument is moot. PC's are so customizable that they can pretty much fit any bill. You can easily hook a small PC up to a TV, and use Xbox 360 wireless controllers with it. Whats the difference between that and 360? Well, not much.

 

[jimbo6846]

well I look at like this. I need a pc anyway so I could buy a $400 pc or I could spend a little more to get one that is decent enough to game on. so a $700-$800 pc is the same as having a cheap pc and a console. factor in the hundreds of dollars I save buying pc games over console games and it is actually much cheaper to game on a pc. Im not saying cost is the most important issue but people saying that pc gaming is more expensive dont know what they are talking about.

All I'm saying is that the person I quoted said consoles are more expensive, which is false. Also, gaming on PC's being or not being more expensive is wholly dependent on the the individuals involved. It depends on what accessories they want, what type of games they play, whether or not they do any online gaming, etc.

Basically, a valid argument could be made for either side, so I will not make one for either.

 

[jimbo6846]

If you've bought a PC within the last two years, all you have to do is throw in an HD 4850 and you have a good gaming machine, and one that far surpasses any console. That's what, $150? Cheaper than any console out there, nevermind the games are also cheaper as well. If you want to say "you have to include the price of the computer as well," then you also have to include the price of the TV with the price of the console. This debate has been argued many times, and it turns out that unless you build a really uber machine, the costs aren't much different.

I could buy a $200 TV and $2000 monitor and destroy your argument. Or you could buy a $200 Monitor and a $2000 TV and destroy my argument. Fact is, you still had to purchase that computer, which was more expensive than the a console already.

 

[jimbo6846]

No, no, no. You can't do a price comparison of two products and assume you already own one, that doesn't work. Your first point contradicts what you say after it. The choice is basically gaming PC (~$700) or console+budget PC ($500 pc + $250-500 console, depending). Of course, if you factor in that the person might not have a TV, a console becomes much more expensive than a PC - but we are assuming people already have a TV (since statistically speaking they already do). Likewise, we assume people already have a PC (for the same reasons as the TV). Thus, the price comparison then boils down to the cost of a graphics card to upgrade the budget PC (that they already have) to a gaming PC (since Core 2 rigs w/ 2-4gb of RAM are fairly common for budget PCs) vs. the cost of a console.

Thus, a gaming PC is cheaper overall than a console (both in terms of upfront cost and TCO). Of course, there are times when this isn't the case (such as if the person wants/needs a laptop instead of a desktop, and thus doesn't already have a desktop), but your arguments just don't work. At all.

Ah, I see. So you can't assume people already own one of the products when comparing the prices in order to lower the price of one of them... but you can?

Bottom line, even if someone already owned a $500 PC and then bought a $200 Graphics card, they still had to drop the $500 on the PC to begin with. It's a sunk cost, but still a cost.

And what about the people who don't have a PC that the Graphics card is compatible with? You ignore all but one situation to prove your point.

 

[kllrnohj]

I could buy a $200 TV and $2000 monitor and destroy your argument. Or you could buy a $200 Monitor and a $2000 TV and destroy my argument. Fact is, you still had to purchase that computer, which was more expensive than the a console already.

Fact is, statistically they already have that computer, just like they already have a TV - so the cost of those are irrelevant, as they already have them.

Ah, I see. So you can't assume people already own one of the products when comparing the prices in order to lower the price of one of them... but you can?

No, I'm making the distinction between a budget PC (that they will statistically have) and a gaming PC.

Bottom line, even if someone already owned a $500 PC and then bought a $200 Graphics card, they still had to drop the $500 on the PC to begin with. It's a sunk cost, but still a cost.

What I'm saying is that that $500 is a fixed cost. Regardless of if they go with a gaming PC or a console, they will still have spent $500 on a PC (again, statistically speaking). Thus, it isn't a factor (just like the cost for a TV isn't).

And what about the people who don't have a PC that the Graphics card is compatible with? You ignore all but one situation to prove your point.

What about people with TVs that only have old antennae inputs? Fringe cases are irrelevant in this discussion. I'm making my argument based on the most statistically likely situation, thus the only situations I'm ignoring are the unlikely or fringe cases (which are pointless to discuss) There are good (cheap) cards for both PCI-Express and AGP that are faster than those in a console (3850 AGP, for example). It is likely they will have at least one or the other.

 

[jimbo6846]

Fact is, statistically they already have that computer, just like they already have a TV - so the cost of those are irrelevant, as they already have them.



No, I'm making the distinction between a budget PC (that they will statistically have) and a gaming PC.



What I'm saying is that that $500 is a fixed cost. Regardless of if they go with a gaming PC or a console, they will still have spent $500 on a PC (again, statistically speaking). Thus, it isn't a factor (just like the cost for a TV isn't).



What about people with TVs that only have old antennae inputs? Fringe cases are irrelevant in this discussion. I'm making my argument based on the most statistically likely situation, thus the only situations I'm ignoring are the unlikely or fringe cases (which are pointless to discuss) There are good (cheap) cards for both PCI-Express and AGP that are faster than those in a console (3850 AGP, for example). It is likely they will have at least one or the other.

All of this is matter of opinion. Our opinions differ, and I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[lgestle]

I have to input maths into this.

A decent CPU will last 6+ years in the gaming world (not latest and greatest, but if 720p of current consoles is the min graphics setting to keep a comp vs console argument....).

That's just about 2 console cycles.

High end pc to keep pace for 6 years:
cpu = $315 (q9450)
mobo = $200 (p45 or 750i ftw)
ram = $80 (4x1 gskill ddr2 800 easily oc's to 1066mhz @ 5-5-5-15, or 950 @
4-4-4-12)
hard drive = $60 (160gb is mf cheap, and if you really need more than
160gb for gaming, you are one weird person)
psu = $120 (BFG 800 W, onsale for $80 now, but i'll be generous)
dvd drive = $20 (light-on rules, and that's a burner no less)
keyboard = $10 (just get a cheap one....sheesh....)
mouse = $50 (get an awsome laser mouse, do it!)
graphics = $600 (get great mainstream card twice over the years.
This is overkill to outpace a console, but why not....)

Total = $1455

Consoles over 6+ years (assume 2 cycles):

launch price = $800 (2x$400 each, usually more, I’ll be gernerous)
controllers = $180 (3x$60, you play with your friend’s right?)
hdmi cables = $40 (we don’t want standard def!)
batteries = $288 (4x12x6, you gotta be kidding me,
f’in xbox controller won’t even last a month….
this is generous @ best for wireless controllers)

Total = $1348 (who the hell said comps are more expensive?)

Let's assume 1:1 console:comp game purchases, with a new purchase every 2 months. Last I checked, average xbox360 game was $60 and pc was $50.

6x6 = 36 x 50 = $1800 for comp.
6x6 = 36 x 60 = $2160 for xbox ($360 more, lol poetic justice)

Comp Total = $3225
Console Total = $3508

Well, look at that. Not only is a pc more customizable, upgradable, and will look a ton better, it costs less….. Let’s not forget xbox live runs you $15/mo (why do i have to pay for a 2nd internet connection = rip off) + arcade game dl’s you can generally get for free on pc.

Consoles are fun, but don’t try to tout them as sure win over a pc.

A little unfair? I own both and your giving an unfair price advantage as you are counting all pc items on sale, or generic.


Consoles over 6+ years (assume 2 cycles):

launch price = $2*300 (using your logic just wait 6 months for the price to drop)
controllers = $1*42$ (Are you counting extra controllers for the PC?)
hdmi cables = $0 (Not a requirement and all the necessary cables for a xbox are included to hook up to a HD TV. Not all monitors come with HDMI either, so lets be fair and buy it at monoprice for 6$ if you want)
batteries = $12.99 (buy the play and charge kit if your interested. I'm giving you this for xbox 360 but you can easily run through batteries on an optional wireless PC keyboard and mouse.

f’in xbox controller won’t even last a month….this is generous @ best for wireless controllers)

What?. I have had my console for 2 years already, and my friends close to that, and none of us have never needed to replace a controller.

So your grand total is 654.99 for a console that will last you 6+ years.

As far as your statement regarding PC titles, the same goes for console games. Owning both I only buy rarely on release and wait for the titles on sale. One of the benefit of consoles over PC is the used market. I'm guaranteed if I walk into gamestop and buy a used game, I don't have to worry about registered CD keys like I would with PC titles.
In short both systems have their place and trying to say they cost the same is rediculous. The comment about buying a video card once every three years is rediculous and you know it. Maybe it can be done if you restrain, but at the same time Direct X, Shader, Opengl does upgrade over that time and your not guaranteed every game that's released for the PC will play on your PC. Many of my friends experienced this when several titles went pixel shader 3.0 mandatory, and they had X800 class cards that were way less than 2 years old that they couldn't even play the game.
Also one important thing that you neglected to include was windows in your pricing scheme. Funny how everyone neglects that but that's alright
Regarding the live comment you get a yearly card for 42$. That is an extra expense outside of the PC to play with people online. However, you also have pay per month titles on the PC that easily eclipse that monthly fee. I agree both are optional, the xbox live is less of one if you want to play online, so you can add that to your total. PS3 doesn't have any, but I'm assuming your geared towards the Xbox 360.

654.99+270 live fees=924.99
Comp Total = $1455 + 60$ case, 99$*2 (OS replaced twice in 6 years if you want to play all titles including DX9 and DX10, DX11 coming out next year)=1715$

The point is both will play games, but it's comparing a BMW to a Honda. Both will get you there but it's hard to convice the honda owners to pay more for a BMW because the ride is that much nicer. The honda owner will say it does what I need it for and it was a great price. You can't compare prices of upgrading the Honda to BMW levels. One is cheaper and they will provide entertainment.
PC provides far better Graphics, but comes at a cost as well. Your midrange card will not run new releases as high resolutions and AA for the entire life of the card, so eventually you get a poorer performing system the longer you own it. Simple as that. People will drive BMW's and swear by them, other people will buy hondas. You can't convince elitists on either side, but owning both and being a PC gamer for 15+ years there is a place for both and you can't deny either route.
Let's not mention not everyone can build a PC or install windows. There's plenty of posts on multiple forums, where people are blaming hardware due to lack of experience. The xbox is a great option for these people and I must admit this is one of the great features for me. I tinker all day on computer hardware/software as a profession, so when I have free time away from the family and work it's nice to just sit down and have the convenience of the console.

 

[Mr. K6]

You don't need a PC that powerful to outpace an X360 for all of its life span. I don't have 2005-2006's prices in front of me, but even today you could build a cheap system:
Case w/ PSU - $100
E7200 - $120
Mobo - ~$80
RAM - $40 2GB
HD 4850 - $150
Mouse, keyboard, headset - $50
Total - $540
(Not including a monitor on purpose since people for some reason don't include the TV when considering consoles). Throw in a Windows license for another $90 for Windows Vista, you're still running at about $150 over the price of an X360 Elite (at current prices) for a much better machine. If you really wanted to pinch pennies you could go even cheaper. Or, if you built when the consoles were much more expensive, you probably could have easily surpassed the X360 in value.

Consoles aren't cheaper, they definitely aren't better performers, and they aren't as flexible nor is it possible to upgrade. If someone comes out and says "I like console gaming better" then that's your personal preference. But don't try to make a point with any of these lame arguments, they're all bullshit.

 

[Slo Gun]

Gears of War I think was better on the XBAWX.

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
Online Gears of war PC makes the xbox version feel like a broken game....

I didn't realise you werent supposed to be able to shoot each other 5 times with the shotgun and run away with such ease until i got the PC version.

The xbox in general cant handle the majority of games that are on it.

They come off jerky and comparitvely unplayable.

If you don't know any different then its fine.

I used to love gears on the xbox, and always assumed that the experience it provided was how the game was meant to be. Now that i have played the PC version i cant stand the 360 version. It comes off as being slow and random.

Consoles are good toys, for casual gamers, but for the hardcore who want to experience the games they way they were inteded, (not only visualy but in terms of performance)a PC is a must.

 

[lgestle]

You don't need a PC that powerful to outpace an X360 for all of its life span. I don't have 2005-2006's prices in front of me, but even today you could build a cheap system:
Case w/ PSU - $100
E7200 - $120
Mobo - ~$80
RAM - $40 2GB
HD 4850 - $150
Mouse, keyboard, headset - $50
Total - $540
(Not including a monitor on purpose since people for some reason don't include the TV when considering consoles). Throw in a Windows license for another $90 for Windows Vista, you're still running at about $150 over the price of an X360 Elite (at current prices) for a much better machine. If you really wanted to pinch pennies you could go even cheaper. Or, if you built when the consoles were much more expensive, you probably could have easily surpassed the X360 in value.

Consoles aren't cheaper, they definitely aren't better performers, and they aren't as flexible nor is it possible to upgrade. If someone comes out and says "I like console gaming better" then that's your personal preference. But don't try to make a point with any of these lame arguments, they're all bullshit.

Once again you are comparing a low midrange machine to the high end console. Compare that to the 299$ Xbox Pro. So you got 640$ PC with OS, against at 299$ Xbox Pro. You even have the 199 Xbox Arcade with No hardrive, but will still allow you to game out of the box due to the included memory card.

Same thing why the wii is kicking ass in this console market. The graphics are not even close to the PS3 or Xbox 360, it's price vs entertainment value. The same arguement is there for the xbox 360/PS3 to PC. Both provide entertainment.

The point is you guys are comparing the price as new on release on a console to the sales price on the PC. I'm giving you the 150 HD4850s, but you also have to give the consoles the sale prices as well.

When the Xbox 360 was released I believe the Nvidia 8800s series were just released. The price of the midrange back then was 400$ for the 8800GTS 640MB was 449$, I bought one on sale for 400$. Thanks to some great competition we have some great midrange cards beween 100-200 dollars. The console has also dropped as well, the arcade for 199$. I believe the gap "is" closing, but your still looking at at minimum 40% investment different upfront.

I'm not trying to convince PC gamers to quit, nor am I saying Console gamers buck up and get a pc. I have both 6 computers and 2 xboxes is the house, and all have a purpose.
It's just like on the PC side you have video cards from 20$ to 600$ on the gaming side.
How much difference is there between a 260 GTX and 280 GTX? Is it worth double the price? To some it is, others not. You can't convince either side which provides the best bang for the buck, that's personal preference.

However, I do have a problem people justifying their hobby by saying the Console cost more than a PC. That's bogus. No need to justify your hobby or choice.

I also ATV on my $5K Yamaha Raptor 350. I don't try to argue my Quad runner costs as much as a high end moutain bike. Or that the quad runner is a better deal than a Dirt bike if you add an extra 2 tires, extra 2 shocks, welding to the frame, and etc.

BTW, you are correct I'm not including TV prices in the console as much as I'm not including the monitor price in the PC for a very simple reason. You can get a VGA adapter for the console to play on a Monitor, which I do with one of them, for 15$ and this is optional. Not everyone has a HDTV, but the same assumption can be made that not everyone has a TV or a Monitor either. You can get a cheap monitor, as much as you can get a cheap TV. With the VGA adapter the price is mute as you would need similar options as you can run a PC on a HDTV or standard TV as well.

 

[kllrnohj]

Once again you are comparing a low midrange machine to the high end console. Compare that to the 299$ Xbox Pro. So you got 640$ PC with OS, against at 299$ Xbox Pro. You even have the 199 Xbox Arcade with No hardrive, but will still allow you to game out of the box due to the included memory card.

Doesn't really matter. The midrange PC he specked is better than the "high end" console by leaps and bounds. The Xbox Arcade is a joke. Of course, we could also switch to the $100 8800GT instead of the $150 HD4850, or the $90 9600GT, or the $75 3850.

Same thing why the wii is kicking ass in this console market. The graphics are not even close to the PS3 or Xbox 360, it's price vs entertainment value. The same arguement is there for the xbox 360/PS3 to PC. Both provide entertainment.

Except the Xbox 360 and PS3 try to be PCs, the Wii doesn't. The games on the 360/PS3 often come out on the PC, too. The Wii has its own target market, its own appeal that doesn't exist on the PC.

The point is you guys are comparing the price as new on release on a console to the sales price on the PC. I'm giving you the 150 HD4850s, but you also have to give the consoles the sale prices as well.

Not really. HD4850s are commonly available at $150 over a sustained period. We aren't counting e-coupons or free game bundles for the HD4850, as that is a slippery slope (one could argue that the 4850 is $90 then, as $150 gets you a 4850 + GRID, which is $60 for consoles).

Speaking of GRID, it is a perfect example of hidden costs. The PC version is $40, the console version is $60. Differences like that are common, and they will add up.

However, I do have a problem people justifying their hobby by saying the Console cost more than a PC. That's bogus. No need to justify your hobby or choice.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to disprove the myth that consoles are cheaper (which is often used as a plus for consoles). In terms of total cost and the bottom line, PCs are cheaper for the very simple reason that even if you have a console, you will still have a PC. It is generally cheaper to upgrade the PC you already have to one that is game worthy than to buy a console. There is the additional bonus that PC games are $10-20 cheaper.

 

[lgestle]

Doesn't really matter. The midrange PC he specked is better than the "high end" console by leaps and bounds. The Xbox Arcade is a joke. Of course, we could also switch to the $100 8800GT instead of the $150 HD4850, or the $90 9600GT, or the $75 3850.
.

One again are we comparing MSRP or are we comparing normal prices that decline? Both those cards released and MSRP for more, but reducted in price after release. Same as the xbox 360. So you can't compare high end console prices at release vs a card that was out for several months that reduced price. Example the 8800GT is a perfect example I bought one on sale at 250 a few months after release. Do I count that, or do I count the price now? You can't have both.
How is the arcade a joke? It allows anyone to buy any xbox 360 game and play it. Has online play, can save games. Yes it does not include additional space to download additional features, but just like a pc you can upgrade it if you wish and want these additional features.

Except the Xbox 360 and PS3 try to be PCs, the Wii doesn't. The games on the 360/PS3 often come out on the PC, too. The Wii has its own target market, its own appeal that doesn't exist on the PC.

How is the xbox 360 trying to be a PC? Does it run windows? Does it run office? Does it have a web browser? It allows a user that plays game and has the online play and online chat. Was the atari trying to be a PC? Last I recall I don't think the PC was invented for the sole purpose of being a game machine. It makes a great one, but it's like calling a car wanting to be a horse. Let's add up bails of hay, boarding, sadles, and etc so we can justify the car....

Not really. HD4850s are commonly available at $150 over a sustained period. We aren't counting e-coupons or free game bundles for the HD4850, as that is a slippery slope (one could argue that the 4850 is $90 then, as $150 gets you a 4850 + GRID, which is $60 for consoles).

Speaking of GRID, it is a perfect example of hidden costs. The PC version is $40, the console version is $60. Differences like that are common, and they will add up.

So when I bought my console it included Forza and Marvel utlimate alliance. Do I include them as 50-60$ titles and reduce that from the price? Or do I consider it bundled and thus OEM (10$ lucky at best).

.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to disprove the myth that consoles are cheaper (which is often used as a plus for consoles). In terms of total cost and the bottom line, PCs are cheaper for the very simple reason that even if you have a console, you will still have a PC. It is generally cheaper to upgrade the PC you already have to one that is game worthy than to buy a console. There is the additional bonus that PC games are $10-20 cheaper.

I'm waiting....
Name one system 3+ years old that will play all available games released for the PC? DX10? Pixel Shader 3? Now add 3 more years. Will it play DX11? Pixel Shader 4?

That's the point. If you want a box that will provide a gaming experience for cheap and will play every game released for that generation, the console is the cheapest.

 

[Mr. K6]

I'm waiting....
Name one system 3+ years old that will play all available games released for the PC? DX10? Pixel Shader 3? Now add 3 more years. Will it play DX11? Pixel Shader 4?

If you want to turn down the graphics and performance to be as poor as they are on the X360 then you easily can. That's the point, the flexibility of the PC allows it to be as crappy as any console or leaps and bounds better just depending on the hardware that's in it.

That's the point. If you want a box that will provide a gaming experience for cheap and will play every game released for that generation, the console is the cheapest.

That's the funny thing, it's not. And yet, beyond all evidence, support, and number crunching you still cannot see this. Consoles are simple plug and play machines that offer your standard gaming experience. They aren't cheaper, they aren't better, they aren't faster; all they are is easy.

 

[lgestle]

If you want to turn down the graphics and performance to be as poor as they are on the X360 then you easily can. That's the point, the flexibility of the PC allows it to be as crappy as any console or leaps and bounds better just depending on the hardware that's in it.
That's the funny thing, it's not. And yet, beyond all evidence, support, and number crunching you still cannot see this. Consoles are simple plug and play machines that offer your standard gaming experience. They aren't cheaper, they aren't better, they aren't faster; all they are is easy.

Trust me I lived it, and still living it to this day as I still own several computers. I wish you could simply reduce graphics and play every game released, you cannot on the pc! As I mentioned earlier many of my friends were PC gamers exclusively. Once pixel shader 3.0 games, Example Raven Shield and GRAW were the first, they couldn't even play it. Pixel shader 3.0 was required. So these people with less than 2 years old machines AGP, AMD systems, with DDR. Were forced to upgrade motherboard, CPU, memory (DDR2) so they can play future titles. This was once again with <2 year old machines.

PC's evolve, that's one of the benefits, but to say a computer 3-6 years old can play every game release for windows is just plain false.

They are not cheaper. Add up the numbers for a 3 year period using either MSRP or fair market values. I have both and I'm not picking favorites and upgrade both. I can tell you by the numbers and from experience the xbox comes out cheaper to play a game. Period...

I'm not arguing which one is faster, which one is better. But are you telling me someone playing bioschock for example on the Xbox 360 is not having a good time compared to someone that's on the PC? How about the PC guy running it at 640*480 running that 3-6 year old system (if he was lucky enough to have a shader 3.0 card). Is that guy having the same ammount of enjoyment playing a game as the guy running it at 1680-1050? It's all relative.

Is the guy playing soliatarie with physical cards having less enjoyement compaired to playing on windows? They both play games

If someone can add up the difference I'm welcome to entertain them. So far people have neglected required PC components/software, and charged MSRP prices for console products (including 50$ HDMI Cables). Take prices now or MSRP on both systems. Use the Xbox 360 Arcade, or Xbox 360 Pro and compare them to PC prices at the same time or at MSRP.

I'll make it interesting.. I'll bet anyone 50$ paypal that the pc listed above with the HD4850 will not play "every" pc release 6 years from now. I'll even reverse the bet, I will make a bet that the Xbox 360 will play every title that will be relased for the Xbox 360 platform. Does that seam fair? Probably not, but you just discovered one of the advantages.

Now before someone else posts, yes I can upgrade the video card. That's a great option. However will my P35-E purchased 6 months ago with PCI-E v1.0 slot run midrange cards coming out in 3-6 years that are > PCI-E v2.0 or better? Or will I need a new motherboard, DDR3, and CPU. Every AGP card ran in a AGP Slot right in the past, right? Tell that to my Voodoo 5 5500 AGP card.

Many of us have been in the pc gaming scene for a long time and there's not one item in my computer that I can say I will have in 3, or at most 6 years. I agree most of it is choice, but others not so much (example game or windows requirements). The only thing I would be willing to bet on is maybe the powercable with be the same Does buying an xbox mean that I'm giving up PC gaming? Nope, nor do I recommend it. It comes down to personal preference on which route you choose but I do get frustrated when people try to say they cost the same. Physical cost and how much you consider the "value" to be are not the same. So I do have a problem when they compare physical cost and bleed it into value (preference).

I'm sad to say PC's are becoming more like consoles. After 3-6 years you have to start all over minus the Case and PSU if your lucky.

 

[Itchyeyes]

If you want to turn down the graphics and performance to be as poor as they are on the X360 then you easily can. That's the point, the flexibility of the PC allows it to be as crappy as any console or leaps and bounds better just depending on the hardware that's in it.

This whole discussion is idiocy. I don't see why, in 2008, people are still trying to break down the cost of PC gaming vs console gaming as if there was some quantitative solution that once and for all proved that one was the better choice for everyone. There is no solution because it's all subjective. Different people have different budgets, pre-existing hardware, taste in games, technical skill, and general preferences. No platform is right for everyone, so why do people insist on arguing relentlessly about which is best?