Creating the PC Equivalent of the $500 Xbox One X Is Trickier Than You Might Guess

The only set up I can see matching this is Raven Ridge if it is as good as I hope it is. AMD top end Apus are usually $150, their MBs are usually cheap at around $70. Without the vRam, 16 gb ddr4 would be best at $100. Case/psu at $50. That is $370 before o/s, hdd, and BR4k.
Dell could probably come up with a cheaper solution like the one above.

Not sure why I joined this conversation. Always turns into a pissing match. Consoles offer an experience that even a $2000 PC can't match and a $200 pos used PC offers useability that NO console can offer. It is like arguing what is a better deal: a $60k truck or a $40k van. Pointless argument.
 
I was hoping that Microsoft was going to announce that Xbox's could run Windows (even if it was the locked down limited Windows 10 S edition). Too bad that the rumors that they were going to do something like that weren't true.

I mean even if they blocked Steam and all other games marketplaces on a Xbox version of Windows 10, it would add incredible value in my opinion to be able to use Office and Creative cloud for example on an XBOX.
 
Quartz-1 said:
There are many places without sufficient bandwidth to stream 4K. There are many places where you have to pay for the data you download and transmit, not just the bandwidth. There are many places still stuck on POTS or worse. No, there's still very much a need for optical drives.
Click to expand...

Even with the bandwidth it is far too compressed. I have given up on 4K streaming and have started to buy physical again to actually see a difference between HD and 4K. Just now need to wait for the Xbox one x as otherwise I will have to spend $500 on a UHD player.
 
\.
Nihilus1 said:
Not sure why I joined this conversation. Always turns into a pissing match. Consoles offer an experience that even a $2000 PC can't match and a $200 pos used PC offers useability that NO console can offer. It is like arguing what is a better deal: a $60k truck or a $40k van. Pointless argument.
Click to expand...

I came here to make a big long post about why this argument is stupid, but really, this says it all. We all know what our PCs can do. They are better, faster, upgradeable, and can do everything we want them to. And that's because we know how to build them, upgrade them, overclock them, etc. Most of my friends don't have a fucking clue. And even if you could build a PC on par with an XB1S for $500 (which you can't, not even close, but let's pretend...) none of my friends would want to learn how to build it or make it work for them. And I sure as fuck wouldn't build it for them and be the guy who has to come fix it every time something doesn't work as effortlessly as it does on a console. I wouldn't trade my PC for this console, but i'm not foolish enough to not admit that (on paper) it's an impressive piece of hardware at a fair price.
 
DPI said:
None of that changes the fact that on a macro consumer usage and interest level, physical media has fallen off a cliff. The "But PS3 had a bluray drive and that helped it" is a false analog since that's a bygone era of Netflix predominantly mailing discs and people buying and renting Blurays. There is practically no uptake for 4K UHD discs and never will be, "but I have slow internet" and "I'm a videophile and streaming sux" edge cases notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Says who? You? BR4k looks to be doing fine:
http://variety.com/2016/digital/new...s-numbers-exceed-disc-predecessor-1201804322/

Despite the sensationalist title, physical media as a whole is doing just fine:
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/amp.ti...ay-struggles-in-the-streaming-age/?source=dam

Streaming music is VERY different than streaming 1080p/4k with surround sound.

Also, discs will always be needed in the military. We are not allowed to stick usb drives into the Dell computers at work. It is alot easier to burn a file to a disc and work at it at home than emailing a ginormous .ppt file. I am sure other corporaratuons have a similar policy.

I realize this has nothing to do with entertainment, but I am always puzzled why so many say "physical media will be dead in a few years." It kind of tells me they have no awareness outside their parent's basement.
 
DF-1 said:
funny i saw this post and saw this on slickdeals. RX 480 = same 6 teraflops as the new $500 xbox one X.

http://www.bjs.com/hp-envy-75--411-...hics.product.3000000000000918104?sc_cid=affil

https://slickdeals.net/f/10260080-h...w-wifi-bt-500w-psu-type-c-win10h-550-with-f-s

HP ENVY 750-411 Desktop for $549.99. Shipping is free. Thanks Suryasis

Specs:
  • Intel Core i5-6400 2.7 GHz CPU
  • 8GB DDR4 Memory
  • 1TB Hard Drive
  • AMD Rx 480 4GB GDDR5 Graphics
    • 4x USB 3.0
    • 2x USB 2.0
    • 1x USB 3.1 Type-C
    • 3x HDMI
    • 3x DisplayPort
  • Dual Band 802.11ac WiFi + Bluetooth 4.2 + Gigabit Ethernet
  • 500W 80+ PSU
  • Windows 10 Home
Click to expand...

Even if this were still available, and even if we ignore the lack of a UHD Drive, not comparable. 6 tflops on a console gpu does not equal 6 tfops on a desktop GPU. We all know this, and you cannot compare them like that. When devs are working with a closed platform they can get every ounce out of that platform. It took me getting a 1080 Ti, a GPU nearly twice as powerful as the XB1S GPU (and more expensive than the entire console) to get Forza Horizon 3 running at 4k 60FPS. MS claims this console can do that also. If that turns out to be true (without tricks like checkerboarding), you're a fool if you can't see why that's impressive.
 
Nihilus1 said:
Says who? You? BR4k looks to be doing fine:
http://variety.com/2016/digital/new...s-numbers-exceed-disc-predecessor-1201804322/

Despite the sensationalist title, physical media as a whole is doing just fine:
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/01/08/blu-ray-struggles-in-the-streaming-age/?source=dam

Streaming music is VERY different than streaming 1080p/4k with surround sound.

Also, discs will always be needed in the military. We are not allowed to stick usb drives into the Dell computers at work. It is alot easier to burn a file to a disc and work at it at home than emailing a ginormous .ppt file. I am sure other corporaratuons have a similar policy.

I realize this has nothing to do with entertainment, but I am always puzzled why so many say "physical media will be dead in a few years." It kind of tells me they have no awareness outside their parent's basement.
Click to expand...

I think physical media could die, if, and only if, a proper digital alternative appears. Video games and music are a perfect example of this. With Steam, physical media on PC is a thing of the past. Consoles are holding out a little harder thanks to renting / borrowing / trading games, but that gap is closing. Physical music is pretty much dead accept for niche things like vinly. The digital counterparts match or exceed their physical counterparts.

That isn't yet true for film. Some movies are on Netflix. Some on Hulu. Some Amazon. Some Vudu. Some on some other obscure publisher specific shit. All of those options, no matter which you chose, come at a quality that is inferior to what's on the disc, and typically do not include the bonus content that many people enjoy. I still buy movies on a disc, not because I like having discs, but because it's the only way to get the best possible version of that film. If a service ever came along like Steam for movies, where in I could buy copies of movies where I got the EXACT same thing I'd get on a disc. A bit-perfect copy of the UHD film with all the extras, I would switch to that in an absolute fucking heartbeat. I'd even pay a premium for the convenience of it. Until that day comes, discs it is.
 
Megalith said:
Some say that the Xbox One X is actually a great deal at $499. PCWorld added credibility to that theory when they tried to build an equivalent system for the same amount of money, but couldn’t: something that really drives the price up is the XOX’s 4K UHD drive, which results in a build far north of the console’s price at $944. And even foregoing that part, the cheapest system they could manage was $652. Mike Ybarra, Xbox’s Corporate Vice President, recently compared the XOX to a $1500 PC.

For the moment, Microsoft’s created a machine that the DIY PC crowd can’t currently match—not when you try to copy both its feature set and cost at the same time, at least. The 4K UHD Blu-Ray disc drive really throws a wrench into this build challenge, and even without it, the Xbox One X holds its own. This situation might be a first, given how often PC gamers tout benefits that console fans miss out on. Still, it’s not a complete victory for the Xbox One X. PC gaming doesn’t require an optical drive, after all, so you can enjoy 4K gaming, 4K video content, and HDR through digital downloads.
Click to expand...
You can't really relate them as equal though.
A PC can be used for so many other applications that at x3 the cost it's still worth it over a locked down low end gaming machine.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Another thing, it's not just the console, it's the tax, the extra controller and game(s)

You have to look at the big picture and take those items / tax into account as well. So in reality you should have a budget of $620. $620 is what anyone who buys an Xbox One X is going to spend at the very least.

And trust me I can build a Xbox One X killer for $620 dollars. PC Games? Dirt cheap or free depending on your moral compass.
Click to expand...
I'm just buying the console, with no tax and free shipping from Newegg.

Second controller is useless since there are barely any games that do split- or same-screen multiplayer.

I have a feeling that most people who will buy the X early on already own an XBONE, like me, so their libraries are already full of games getting X-feature patches. I'll be buying Forza 7, but that comes out a full month before the X, so it doesn't factor into the purchase cost.

Also, let's face it: people buying a console generally are not interested in buying a PC, so the comparison is wasted breath. And at this point, Microsoft has more sales on the games people actually want to play more often than Steam does, and that is excluding the Gold member only sales.

Really, a lot of the old arguments made against console gaming from PC elitists don't hold true anymore. The only one that can be made is the lack of freedom in choosing your input method. For me, I still play on consoles generally for the multiplayer aspect since it seems the PC community shuns a lot of the releases I'm interested in playing.
 
First, I think it's important to understand this article isn't about completely replacing a PC with a console, or that the console is going to be better than your PC. The intent is to show how much they are packing in these consoles for the price they are selling them for. Consoles reach a very wide market now, wider than the PC gaming market, like it or not. Even so they are never going to be able to compete with the raw power, versatility, and upgrade-ability you will get with a PC. But they don't need to either.

Vercinaigh said:
I'll keep that in mind when we see exactly how it really performs not in staged highlights, there has NEVER been a case where console was better value from a hardware standpoint, I seriously doubt it will be this time, either, when it comes out and shows it's colors.
Click to expand...

This statement is patently false. The PS3 was a value for what it provided. So much so many companies bought hundreds of them to use as distributed computing components. In fact, generally speaking, consoles are well worth it for the hardware they provide. They have very specialized builds that allow them to optimize functions better than a traditional PC. The problem often comes in when you can't load your own software/build on them.

SixFootDuo said:
Another thing, it's not just the console, it's the tax, the extra controller and game(s)

You have to look at the big picture and take those items / tax into account as well. So in reality you should have a budget of $620. $620 is what anyone who buys an Xbox One X is going to spend at the very least.

And trust me I can build a Xbox One X killer for $620 dollars. PC Games? Dirt cheap or free depending on your moral compass.
Click to expand...

Not when you have to get all the same things. If you do a comparison, part for parts, controllers for controllers, games for games, you will not get the same value.

SixFootDuo said:
First of all, WHY DA FCK would you want to and second, who cares.

These are the stupidest questions that often get asked and they are fundamentally flawed from the get-go. I swear earth is populated with at least a few billion people with out common sense.

Someone tell these idiots that you can't build one because Microsoft gets dealer / wholesale / manufacture pricing that the public would never get. There, they have their answer, case closed.
Click to expand...

Really you are making the point for Microsoft and consoles here on this one. Who cares if they get all these deals on parts to make their system, they are still passing that savings on to the consumer then. They also came out and said they weren't selling the system for a profit either, that they are looking to profit on games, which is the way all consoles are designed. With the ease of use and the instant community they now provide, they make it far easier for the layman.
 
This news article would be a great way to pump up a site that lets users pick their own parts and share their builds. If only something like that existed... *cough* https://pchound.com/ *cough*
 
Viper87227 said:
Even if this were still available, and even if we ignore the lack of a UHD Drive, not comparable. 6 tflops on a console gpu does not equal 6 tfops on a desktop GPU. We all know this, and you cannot compare them like that. When devs are working with a closed platform they can get every ounce out of that platform. It took me getting a 1080 Ti, a GPU nearly twice as powerful as the XB1S GPU (and more expensive than the entire console) to get Forza Horizon 3 running at 4k 60FPS. MS claims this console can do that also. If that turns out to be true (without tricks like checkerboarding), you're a fool if you can't see why that's impressive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I usually estimate about 15-20% gains on the console for the same hardware on PCs due to optimizations.

Armenius said:
Really, a lot of the old arguments made against console gaming from PC elitists don't hold true anymore.
Click to expand...
Like what? If anything, it's gotten better for the PC over time. Here's a quick list of how I see it:

Consoles:
+more simplicity / can start playing faster
+easier for the living room
+lower upfront cost
+less multiplayer hacking
+exclusives
-fixed resolution
-fixed framerates
-gamepad for precision aiming
-higher game expense
-costs more to play online

PCs:
+Flexibility of settings you want to run
+Flexibility of how much you want to spend
+Can do modding on some games / trainers / etc.
+Can do a million other things with your PC
+Can have more extras like triple screen surround, higher res VR, etc.
+Games are cheaper on average over time
+Way, way more mid-studio & indie games / wider variety
-higher upfront cost
-more things can go wrong
-developers more likely to release something buggy
-more setup time / learning for those unfamiliar


So what exactly has changed for the arguments against console?
 
FTFY. Although I agree with the premise.

tetris42 said:
Yeah, I usually estimate about 15-20% gains on the console for the same hardware on PCs due to optimizations.

Like what? If anything, it's gotten better for the PC over time. Here's a quick list of how I see it:

Consoles:
+more simplicity / can start playing faster
+easier for the living room
+lower upfront cost
+less multiplayer hacking
+exclusives
-fixed resolution
-fixed framerates
-gamepad for precision aiming
-higher game expense
-costs more to play online

PCs:
+Flexibility of settings you want to run only if allowed (crappy on PC ports)
+Flexibility of how much you want to spend
+Can do modding on some games / trainers / etc. only if allowed (crappy on PC ports)
+Can do a million other things with your PC
+Can have more extras like triple screen surround, higher res VR, etc. when it works and is supported
+Games are cheaper on average over time
+Way, way more mid-studio & indie games / wider variety
-higher upfront cost
-more things can go wrong
-developers more likely to release something buggy
-more setup time / learning for those unfamiliar


So what exactly has changed for the arguments against console?
Click to expand...
 
NoOther said:
FTFY. Although I agree with the premise.
Click to expand...
Well for the PC getting the crappier version, that tends to be pretty rare nowadays. I can only think of a few examples in recent history where that still happens (like Arkham Knight). What happens a lot MORE is that the PC version is only AS GOOD as the console version, which can be a downgrade compared to a PC-focused game. Even in those cases, you can still bump the resolution, usually the framerate, add antialiasing, etc.
 
tetris42 said:
Yeah, I usually estimate about 15-20% gains on the console for the same hardware on PCs due to optimizations.

Like what? If anything, it's gotten better for the PC over time. Here's a quick list of how I see it:

Consoles:
+more simplicity / can start playing faster
+easier for the living room
+lower upfront cost
+less multiplayer hacking
+exclusives
-fixed resolution
-fixed framerates
-gamepad for precision aiming
-higher game expense
-costs more to play online

PCs:
+Flexibility of settings you want to run
+Flexibility of how much you want to spend
+Can do modding on some games / trainers / etc.
+Can do a million other things with your PC
+Can have more extras like triple screen surround, higher res VR, etc.
+Games are cheaper on average over time
+Way, way more mid-studio & indie games / wider variety
-higher upfront cost
-more things can go wrong
-developers more likely to release something buggy
-more setup time / learning for those unfamiliar


So what exactly has changed for the arguments against console?
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. Only part that I'm not 100% sure about is the "cheaper games over time". On PC we get amazing sales and often new games are 20% off the $60 retail on day 1 of release. However, my friend's brother is a console owner and says he plays almost everything for free by buying games used on amazon then reselling them once he beats the game. Not sure if people can still do that but physical games do give that option we don't have. I think the fact that we don't have physical games and resale is partially why the discounting system and things like steam sales even exist on PC.

Overall very good and fair list of pros and cons.
 
tetris42 said:
Well for the PC getting the crappier version, that tends to be pretty rare nowadays. I can only think of a few examples in recent history where that still happens (like Arkham Knight). What happens a lot MORE is that the PC version is only AS GOOD as the console version, which can be a downgrade compared to a PC-focused game. Even in those cases, you can still bump the resolution, usually the framerate, add antialiasing, etc.
Click to expand...

Actually I see a lot of the opposite. There is now a string of games made for mobile that are very cheaply ported to PC. There are still many console games being ported to PC, that while they give some options, those options actually achieve very little. These ported games don't nearly have the same versatility like in the old era of games where everything is customizeable. It is like when people tell me that resolution doesn't mean you get more screen space, just that image will be resized for that resolution and fill in the spaces. Literally W.T.F. That is not how it is supposed to work. Games used to be made where you used a higher resolution, you would get a bigger screen or window. It's like people forget when you go widescreen, it isn't supposed to stretch your screen, it is supposed to give you a wider viewing area. What is widescreen? It is a higher resolution. So why at 4k am I not getting a far greater viewing distance? Why am I just getting a scaled image?

So no, games aren't really being effectively ported for PC, they are barely being effectively made for PC anymore. They are making games for the largest group of users at the most used resolutions and dumbing everything down to simple scaling or textures.
 
NoOther said:
This statement is patently false. The PS3 was a value for what it provided. So much so many companies bought hundreds of them to use as distributed computing components. In fact, generally speaking, consoles are well worth it for the hardware they provide. They have very specialized builds that allow them to optimize functions better than a traditional PC. The problem often comes in when you can't load your own software/build on them.
Click to expand...

Oh boy lets use one edge case example of something performing well at ONE THING as a generalized point of being overall better. I mean while we're at it might as well replace all the things with GPU's, who needs CPU's, I mean I can show you several things they're sooooo much better at than a CPU, that makes them just plain superior right? /s
 
Vercinaigh said:
Oh boy lets use one edge case example of something performing well at ONE THING as a generalized point of being overall better. I mean while we're at it might as well replace all the things with GPU's, who needs CPU's, I mean I can show you several things they're sooooo much better at than a CPU, that makes them just plain superior right? /s
Click to expand...

I don't even know wtf you are talking about here? What am I generalizing? And what is the "one edge case" I am using? I named a number of different things. Games for mobile ported to PC without any options. Games for console ported to PC with very few options. Games for console ported to PC that no matter what you choose, don't affect anything more than what you get on console. Games that instead of expanding your world view with higher resolutions, simply scale to that resolution. And where does the CPU vs GPU even come into this argument? I just have no idea where you were going with your argument there.
 
Nihilus1 said:
Says who? You? BR4k looks to be doing fine:
http://variety.com/2016/digital/new...s-numbers-exceed-disc-predecessor-1201804322/

Despite the sensationalist title, physical media as a whole is doing just fine:
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/01/08/blu-ray-struggles-in-the-streaming-age/?source=dam

Streaming music is VERY different than streaming 1080p/4k with surround sound.

Also, discs will always be needed in the military. We are not allowed to stick usb drives into the Dell computers at work. It is alot easier to burn a file to a disc and work at it at home than emailing a ginormous .ppt file. I am sure other corporaratuons have a similar policy.

I realize this has nothing to do with entertainment, but I am always puzzled why so many say "physical media will be dead in a few years." It kind of tells me they have no awareness outside their parent's basement.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's because people had just bought DVDs and didn't want to replace them or if they feel that UHD provides a more significant upgrade. I guess it could also be because of people replacing those old 1080 sets with 4k sets with HDR.
 
Viper87227 said:
I think physical media could die, if, and only if, a proper digital alternative appears. Video games and music are a perfect example of this. With Steam, physical media on PC is a thing of the past. Consoles are holding out a little harder thanks to renting / borrowing / trading games, but that gap is closing. Physical music is pretty much dead accept for niche things like vinly. The digital counterparts match or exceed their physical counterparts.

That isn't yet true for film. Some movies are on Netflix. Some on Hulu. Some Amazon. Some Vudu. Some on some other obscure publisher specific shit. All of those options, no matter which you chose, come at a quality that is inferior to what's on the disc, and typically do not include the bonus content that many people enjoy. I still buy movies on a disc, not because I like having discs, but because it's the only way to get the best possible version of that film. If a service ever came along like Steam for movies, where in I could buy copies of movies where I got the EXACT same thing I'd get on a disc. A bit-perfect copy of the UHD film with all the extras, I would switch to that in an absolute fucking heartbeat. I'd even pay a premium for the convenience of it. Until that day comes, discs it is.
Click to expand...

That's a model I don't want. Look at GTA IV. The music was nerfed a few years ago for Steam users, while people who bought the disk have the original game/music in perpetuity.
 
Seventyfive said:
I agree with everything you said. Only part that I'm not 100% sure about is the "cheaper games over time". On PC we get amazing sales and often new games are 20% off the $60 retail on day 1 of release. However, my friend's brother is a console owner and says he plays almost everything for free by buying games used on amazon then reselling them once he beats the game. Not sure if people can still do that but physical games do give that option we don't have. I think the fact that we don't have physical games and resale is partially why the discounting system and things like steam sales even exist on PC.

Overall very good and fair list of pros and cons.
Click to expand...
Okay, you have me there. I hadn't heard of anyone buying the game used, playing it, then selling it to essentially negate the cost before. I guess it's debatable if that's preferable since you lose ownership of the games to go back to, but I can't argue against that being even cheaper than going with the digital sales route.

NoOther said:
Actually I see a lot of the opposite. There is now a string of games made for mobile that are very cheaply ported to PC. There are still many console games being ported to PC, that while they give some options, those options actually achieve very little. These ported games don't nearly have the same versatility like in the old era of games where everything is customizeable. It is like when people tell me that resolution doesn't mean you get more screen space, just that image will be resized for that resolution and fill in the spaces. Literally W.T.F. That is not how it is supposed to work. Games used to be made where you used a higher resolution, you would get a bigger screen or window. It's like people forget when you go widescreen, it isn't supposed to stretch your screen, it is supposed to give you a wider viewing area. What is widescreen? It is a higher resolution. So why at 4k am I not getting a far greater viewing distance? Why am I just getting a scaled image?

So no, games aren't really being effectively ported for PC, they are barely being effectively made for PC anymore. They are making games for the largest group of users at the most used resolutions and dumbing everything down to simple scaling or textures.
Click to expand...
You're conflating a lot of things here and some of which I think is either false or else not explained properly. I'll try and break it down:

-I'm in no way arguing a run-of-the-mill PC port from console is as good as a game designed from the ground up for PC. That's a given.
-Actually in a whole LOT of games more resolution doesn't mean more screen space. The vast majority even. If I play a racing game at 1280x720, then I upgrade to a super 4k gaming set up, I don't have ANY more screen space than I did before. The difference is everything is way sharper and cleaner looking and I can make out small details much better. Now if I play a custom-tailored PC RTS with customizable viewports, then yes, a higher resolution could result in more screen space, but games like that are the exception, not the norm.
-I may be confused, but for part of it, it sounds like you're arguing against games that are using upscaling. So if a game only renders at 1080, but is upscaled to 4k, resulting in a blurry image. I agree, that is bullshit, but I honestly can't think of any PC games that do that, or if so, aren't patched by a modder within days (I think Deadly Premonition was one of those). This is such a small number of games that doe this, I would argue less than 1%.
-It sounds also like you're complaining about games not scaling wider beyond 16:9 widescreen. That is the case for a few games, though I'd argue a lot less than more (Overwatch is notorious for this). Regardless, that still doesn't make it WORSE than the console version. On the console, you get 16:9 and that's it. There are still plenty of games that scale for full widescreen surround, though it could be in the double digits for games that don't.

I think you're arguing against something I didn't say. I'm not saying PC ports are all great, I'm saying they're frequently still the superior version. Put it another way: out of all your complaints, which does the console do BETTER than on a PC?
 
NoOther said:
I don't even know wtf you are talking about here? What am I generalizing? And what is the "one edge case" I am using? I named a number of different things. Games for mobile ported to PC without any options. Games for console ported to PC with very few options. Games for console ported to PC that no matter what you choose, don't affect anything more than what you get on console. Games that instead of expanding your world view with higher resolutions, simply scale to that resolution. And where does the CPU vs GPU even come into this argument? I just have no idea where you were going with your argument there.
Click to expand...
If you don't then that explains a lot.
 
I don't think a 4K UHD drive is must for a gaming PC, or if even necessary.
But sure you need it if you want the same features, but like I used my ps3's bluray capability maybe once?
 
Meh... At the time of the PS4 and XB1 release, those would have cost around $700-800 to build. Go back further to the Xbox 360 release and you would have been paying upwards of $1000 at the time of it's release. Go back even further and Xbox 1 would have cost well north of $1000. Just spit-balling on loose equivalents...

Xbox 360 = mid-range Athlon + 1900 XT + 500GB HDD + 2GB RAM + PSU + Case + mobo
PS4 = mid-range Core i3 (?) + 7800 GTX + 500GB HDD + 4GB RAM + PSU + Case + mobo
Xbox 1 = mid-range Pentium II + Geforce 3...
 
tetris42 said:
Yeah, I usually estimate about 15-20% gains on the console for the same hardware on PCs due to optimizations.

Like what? If anything, it's gotten better for the PC over time. Here's a quick list of how I see it:

Consoles:
+more simplicity / can start playing faster
+easier for the living room
+lower upfront cost
+less multiplayer hacking
+exclusives
-fixed resolution
-fixed framerates
-gamepad for precision aiming
-higher game expense
-costs more to play online

PCs:
+Flexibility of settings you want to run
+Flexibility of how much you want to spend
+Can do modding on some games / trainers / etc.
+Can do a million other things with your PC
+Can have more extras like triple screen surround, higher res VR, etc.
+Games are cheaper on average over time
+Way, way more mid-studio & indie games / wider variety
-higher upfront cost
-more things can go wrong
-developers more likely to release something buggy
-more setup time / learning for those unfamiliar


So what exactly has changed for the arguments against console?
Click to expand...

your controller comment only maters if you only play FPS or RTS games. There are just as many if not more games where a controller makes a hell of a lot more sense than a keyboard and mouse. So that is a wash. Even the higher cost of gaming isn't as much as you guys keep trying to say. Personally I spent $2000 on my current computer, $500 on my Xbox One at release (yes everyone forgets that the original One released at $499 with the Kinect). I am still a ways off before I make up the $1500 difference even if paying $5 - $10 more on a game that might be on a tad better sale on the PC. Most digital copies go on sale on the Xbox around the same time they do Steam, Origin or Uplay. There are games on sale every week for 25% off, then you have the normal summer sales or stuff like where a lot of games go on sale for cheap. Normally that is when I will pickup a few games that I have been on the fence about. If anything I would change you list so that.

Console
+ includes controller for non FPS games
+ in games chat / group chat doesn't require special hardware or software
+ New consoles can stream 4K content from Netflix and other providers
+ Better for in room multiplayer
- gamepad for precision aiming (FPS or RTS games)

PC:
- No 4K steaming through most content providers except Netflix on single CPU line, so additional device such as a Roku is needed or TV apps if supported are needed for 4K playable.
- games require team speak or other separate program running for game chat
- Extra cost of purchasing a controller if you don't own a Xbox, additional hardware might still be needed to use the controller.

Both have their pros and cons. Which is why some people are willing to use both. For resolution that is one of those things that is starting to get closed in on more and more. For the AVERAGE person, honestly if they don't have a higher end gaming system they probably wouldn't notice much difference between the PC and a current generation console. I played Fall Out 3 on the PC, then played New Vegas on the 360. That was hard, but I was able to rent the game so that is how I played it. For Fall Out 4 I played it on the Xbox One, and it was fine. Review groups even found that the game was very close on PC, Xbox One and PS4 in many case. Once you turned up everything to max on the PC sure you got some better lighting results and more grass, but there wasn't a massive difference which is what was noticed on many games that have been compared side by side. With better hardware for the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X these gaps will be even closer for the average person. Sure those will high end computers will still be able to push out more. But again not to the degree that the average person is going to realize that there is anything massively different. Which is what the person you replied to was getting at. The visual gap between console and pc has been getting closer and closer.
 
Exavior said:
Both have their pros and cons. Which is why some people are willing to use both.
Click to expand...

the only reason I'm "willing" to use consoles is because of exclusives. Otherwise I'd never in my worst nightmares even consider them. But even that is starting to fade. I can't be bothered any longer to struggle with a gamepad, exclusives be damned. The controller is not just bad for FPS and RTS games, it's bad for almost everthing. The only place where a gamepad beats mouse+kb is driving games, but that's why I have two racing wheels.
 
Exavior said:
your controller comment only maters if you only play FPS or RTS games. There are just as many if not more games where a controller makes a hell of a lot more sense than a keyboard and mouse. So that is a wash. Even the higher cost of gaming isn't as much as you guys keep trying to say. Personally I spent $2000 on my current computer, $500 on my Xbox One at release (yes everyone forgets that the original One released at $499 with the Kinect). I am still a ways off before I make up the $1500 difference even if paying $5 - $10 more on a game that might be on a tad better sale on the PC. Most digital copies go on sale on the Xbox around the same time they do Steam, Origin or Uplay. There are games on sale every week for 25% off, then you have the normal summer sales or stuff like where a lot of games go on sale for cheap. Normally that is when I will pickup a few games that I have been on the fence about. If anything I would change you list so that.

Console
+ includes controller for non FPS games
+ in games chat / group chat doesn't require special hardware or software
+ New consoles can stream 4K content from Netflix and other providers
+ Better for in room multiplayer
- gamepad for precision aiming (FPS or RTS games)

PC:
- No 4K steaming through most content providers except Netflix on single CPU line, so additional device such as a Roku is needed or TV apps if supported are needed for 4K playable.
- games require team speak or other separate program running for game chat
- Extra cost of purchasing a controller if you don't own a Xbox, additional hardware might still be needed to use the controller.

Both have their pros and cons. Which is why some people are willing to use both. For resolution that is one of those things that is starting to get closed in on more and more. For the AVERAGE person, honestly if they don't have a higher end gaming system they probably wouldn't notice much difference between the PC and a current generation console. I played Fall Out 3 on the PC, then played New Vegas on the 360. That was hard, but I was able to rent the game so that is how I played it. For Fall Out 4 I played it on the Xbox One, and it was fine. Review groups even found that the game was very close on PC, Xbox One and PS4 in many case. Once you turned up everything to max on the PC sure you got some better lighting results and more grass, but there wasn't a massive difference which is what was noticed on many games that have been compared side by side. With better hardware for the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X these gaps will be even closer for the average person. Sure those will high end computers will still be able to push out more. But again not to the degree that the average person is going to realize that there is anything massively different. Which is what the person you replied to was getting at. The visual gap between console and pc has been getting closer and closer.
Click to expand...
Almost all of what you're mentioning was sort of covered in what I said. I already said for the same performance, the PC is more expensive, fine add a controller cost of $15, more if you want a high-end one. The difference is on the PC you can just add a controller. On an Xbox, if I want something better to aim with, I can get bent. If you're paying $2000 for a PC, yes, you probably do lose the price advantage, but you're way, way beyond equivalency of the Xbox at that price also. You can game at 60fps at 1440p for a lot less than that for a system that's likely to last you even past the current console cycle. There's not much of a ceiling as to what you can spend on the PC. If you look at what you could have bought when the Xbox One came out, you could have grabbed a 770, which would still be running circles around the original Xbox One today. I was thinking more in terms of spending $200-300 more on a PC. That gap gets made up a lot faster than $1500 obviously, though it's only on a normal basis that you're saving $5-10 a title on. If you wait for the major sales, it can look more like $20-30. Once you get to games that have been priced below $10, the console has a harder time competing if just from shipping costs.

As for in-game chat, that doesn't require special hardware any more than the Xbox does. For software, yes, it can. Again, this is why I said PC has a more complex setup. It's just as easy (sometimes even easier) if it's already SET UP however. You say Xbox is better for in-room multiplayer. In what way? Again, the complexity of the setup is still there on the PC, there's no denying that, but making a living room oriented gaming PC where all you have to do is pick up a controller once it's done is totally an option.

As for the 4k streaming, I don't much about that, I'm only looking at the gaming end of things.

Regarding graphics, I may have lost the reference to the original statement. Yes, graphics on the console are better than ever and the average person probably won't notice the difference (except maybe 30 v. 60fps). I like my antialiasing, but if I was sitting halfway across the room, I might not notice then either.

I guess the bottom line is aside from setup simplicity, which there's no denying, there's very little that the console can do that the PC cannot ALSO do, often better, and it can be as economical or hog wild as you want.
 
Silentbob343 said:
These goal posts are crazy ;)
Click to expand...

Goal post have not moved at all. :D Not my fault you are unable to shot straight into the net. ;) Finding a rare and mostly unobtainable machine is not going to match up with a wide spread and fully obtainable device, when it is released.

Edit: Fixed typo.
 
Last edited:
Spoiler alert: There is no PC equivalent, because PC's aren't locked down :smuggrin:.
 
ManofGod said:
Goal post have not moved at all. :D Not my fault you are unable to shot straight into the net. ;) Finding a rare and mostly unobtainable machine is not going to match up with a wipe spread and fully obtainable device, when it is released.
Click to expand...
Show me an Xbox one x available today.

What? Have nothing? I keep finding better systems than it easily that don't have a tablets CPU. By the time it's released the pcs I linked will be $100 cheaper than the Xbox.I'm not going to keep linking you shit, I've made my point
 
Exavior said:
$500 on my Xbox One at release (yes everyone forgets that the original One released at $499 with the Kinect).
Click to expand...

Everyone forgets? Actually everyone remembers, because that silly Kinect they tried to force down everyone's throat added $100 to the price and caused the console to flop, on top of all the other screwups of that infamous launch.

If anything, you'd think MS had learned a lesson that the $499 pricepoint is death.
 
DPI said:
Everyone forgets? Actually everyone remembers, because that silly Kinect they tried to force down everyone's throat added $100 to the price and caused the console to flop, on top of all the other screwups of that infamous launch.

If anything, you'd think MS had learned a lesson that the $499 pricepoint is death.
Click to expand...

The Kinect itself is a good idea, but forcing it in the package was the mistake. They should have started with just the XB1 and controller, then offered packages that included the Kinect. But the may thing that killed it didn't have as much to do with the price point as it did the bad press over their original poorly explained DRM scheme. Which is another thing they should have offered as an option if people wanted to use a family share plan.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Everyone forgets? Actually everyone remembers, because that silly Kinect they tried to force down everyone's throat added $100 to the price and caused the console to flop, on top of all the other screwups of that infamous launch.

If anything, you'd think MS had learned a lesson that the $499 pricepoint is death.
Click to expand...

Dude, people were being completely foolish when it comes to that and no, $499 pricepoint is not death. The XBox One with Kinect became $399 and people still would not buy it because of an irrational hatred. Oh well, Microsoft made out anyways because they were then able to sell the One without the Kinect for the same $399 and make money at that point, LOL!

Shame too because having the Kinect in the box meant across the board support. Once that option was removed, support withered away. (Thankfully, it still works for basic stuff but, it just is not what it could have been.) Ah consumers, basically following any irrationality, one step at a time. :D
 
ManofGod said:
Dude, people were being completely foolish when it comes to that and no, $499 pricepoint is not death. The XBox One with Kinect became $399 and people still would not buy it because of an irrational hatred. Oh well, Microsoft made out anyways because they were then able to sell the One without the Kinect for the same $399 and make money at that point, LOL!
Click to expand...

I actually got mine for $350 with the Kinect.
 
They should make a XbOXOX hugs n kisses edition

That's trademarked 6/21/17. PM me with offers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top