PC gaming is cheaper then Console gaming(according to IGN)

BigJayDogg3 said:
Is it realistic? Definitely. Could we on [H] do it? Likely not. The group we reside in is the polar opposite of "budget". We buy 30 inch monitors and several high end GPUs not because we just want to play games, but because we want to play games at extremely high levels.

If the goal is to bring console level experience to a desktop, a computer could be built on an extreme budget that would allow you to play at decent frame rates at low - medium quality settings when using a relatively low resolution.
Click to expand...

This. Just because we spend a fortune doesn't mean we have to.

In the end, the relationship between PC and console gaming is too different and analyzing the costs of either is too inconsistent to reasonably quantify. But it makes for great forum fodder :D
 
I think one of the more important points that a lot of console and PC gamers over look is quality of graphics. When my brother lived with me he thought it was absolutely stupid that I spend $1200 on my PC to play games when his used PS3 cost him $200. He thought that because his was cheaper and they both played games my PC was a complete waste of money.

That all changed by just showcasing one game...and one game only...Grand Theft Auto 4.

He and I were playing it at the same time...him on his console...me on my PC. I wish I had video of his jaw hitting the ground when he saw my modded GTA 4...which needless to say even unmodded looks 10x better on PC...but he got to watch me play it in glorious 1800x1440...limitless draw distance...limitless detail...10x the amount of cars and pedestrians on the screen at any given point compared to the consoles...modded cars that have more detail and polygons than anything Forza or Gran Turismo could ever DREAM of having...iCEnhancer, which makes the post-processing effects and shadows have a near life-like look...all while rocking it out to my own custom music set in the game...

In the end...he couldn't finish GTA 4 on his PS3 as his views on how limited and shitty the console version was compared to my near real life rendition of the virtual world in GTA 4. I had to let him play it on my PC so he could finish it at that point.

And this just about happened with many other games too including Metro 2033, Just Cause 2 (he didn't know how extensively games could be modded on PC), Battlefield 3...hell even Modern Warfare 2...just to name a few...

So in conclusion...is console gaming or PC gaming cheaper? It can go either way...but I think the main difference lies not in cost, but in quality of graphics. If I had $1200 to spare right now I'd do it all over again no doubt.

Oh by the way...my brother is now a PC gamer...
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
Is it realistic? Definitely. Could we on [H] do it? Likely not. The group we reside in is the polar opposite of "budget". We buy 30 inch monitors and several high end GPUs not because we just want to play games, but because we want to play games at extremely high levels.

If the goal is to bring console level experience to a desktop, a computer could be built on an extreme budget that would allow you to play at decent frame rates at low - medium quality settings when using a relatively low resolution.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing... I dont know anyone who games significantly and has done it cheaper on PC than console, so while its theoretically possible, I don't think it really happens all that often and thus isn't realistic.

Even non-enthusiasts I know who dont have the upgrade bug, they've still spent more on the initial purchase of their PC than the cost of a console by many times, no one I know has bought a low end 2nd hand PC for gaming, unless they're intending to give it away to a relative or something. They haven't bought anywhere near enough games to make up for the price difference. Anyone who has bought enough games to make up for the difference spends far more than that on PC hardware.

So while I agree PC gaming "can" be cheaper, I also think its intellectual masturbation to come up with these theoretical situations, because no one actually does it, not even outside enthusiast circles (out of my gaming friends, I'd only describe 1 of them as enthusiast, he doesn't reside on [H], but he has spent a good $5-6000 on PCs since the 360 came out). :p
 
I have to say it is a total bullshit argument to include the price of the TV into a PC versus Console debate. Even if you never game do you know anyone that doesn't own a TV?

Even a little shitty one, that can still play console games.

I know plenty of people that use an IPAD, massive smart phone or laptop as their primary computer.
 
roaf85 said:
I have to say it is a total bullshit argument to include the price of the TV into a PC versus Console debate. Even if you never game do you know anyone that doesn't own a TV?
Click to expand...
I thank god everyday I wake up and continue to not own a television.
 
UtopiA said:
I thank god everyday I wake up and continue to not own a television.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you are poor or the internet is that much better. Between blogs and stupid shit I might take a TV with shitty shows over anything internet related.
 
roaf85 said:
Why? Because you are poor or the internet is that much better. Between blogs and stupid shit I might take a TV with shitty shows over anything internet related.
Click to expand...
The shows I want to watch are on the internet with less commercials.
 
roaf85 said:
I have to say it is a total bullshit argument to include the price of the TV into a PC versus Console debate. Even if you never game do you know anyone that doesn't own a TV?
Click to expand...

I don't. :D

I recently spent some time in the US and after watching the crap you guys call TV, I don't understand why most Americans would own a TV at all. :p Not that Australian TV is much better, but it seems you guys have so much more filler crap between the couple of decent programs.

But yeah, I don't own a TV, I know at least 2 other people who don't own TVs either.
 
I would rather PC gaming to cost more than consoles, simply because I'd rather all the annoying little kids to stick to their consoles and stay away from the PC.

In the ~two months that I've been playing L4D, I've banned more people than I can remember from my local server.
 
JoeUser said:
I think one of the more important points that a lot of console and PC gamers over look is quality of graphics. When my brother lived with me he thought it was absolutely stupid that I spend $1200 on my PC to play games when his used PS3 cost him $200. He thought that because his was cheaper and they both played games my PC was a complete waste of money.

That all changed by just showcasing one game...and one game only...Grand Theft Auto 4.

He and I were playing it at the same time...him on his console...me on my PC. I wish I had video of his jaw hitting the ground when he saw my modded GTA 4.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what happens when console fanboys get some perspective on the situation. It's nothing you can really adequately explain to someone, they just have to see it side by side to finally "get it".

Kind of like trying to explain the difference between a TN monitor and IPS, you can tell them the viewing angles on TNs are bad, and they're washed out and the colours are inaccurate, but it doesn't sink in until you see a TN next to an IPS, then it's immediately clear just how big that difference is.
 
This has to be one of the stupidest pieces of journalism I've ever read. It basically implies that nobody buying a game console has a TV to go with it. I'd be curious to know what percentage of people buying a new game console NEED to buy a TV to go with it. I bet it's about 1%. Being logical and not taking into account peripherals that you probably already have, a new game system can be had for $250-$300. A decent gaming PC is probably going to be 3x as expensive.

Also, many of the parts they picked are not good. That PSU is probably more of a fire hazard than anything else. A single 8GB stick of ram... has nobody at IGN heard of dual-channel? That motherboard is probably a piece o crap too for the price its selling it. I feel like any console gamer that this article convinces to build a PC is going to end up with a junky unstable computer, and all its going to do is solidify their opinion that consoles were better all along.
 
Fact: PC software is cheaper than console software, all else equal.

Fact: PCs are multi-function devices, and most people need a computer one way or another.

Fact: A PC video card capable of Xbox 360 graphics quality (720p, usually no AA/AF, no vscan, poor draw distance, etc) is far less expensive than an Xbox 360.

Fact: A PC video card is useful for more than just playing video games.

Fact: A "console" means either Xbox, Wii, or PS3, so titles will be limited by the platform, so to "cover all bases" game wise requires the purchase of very redundant hardware.

Fact: Consoles offer very slow technological advancement (the Xbox 360 was designed in 2005, now nearly seven years later the hardware is obsolete yet a replacement is not available).

Fact: PCs can be connected to televisions or receivers just like consoles.

Fact: PCs offer more peripheral choices than consoles (and my PC can use Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii controllers to boot).

Fact: PC games often cater to a diverse mod community, enhancing the opportunities available to the player.

Fact: You have too much free time if you're still reading this.
 
The real question isnt which is more expensive, its why the hell do people still read IGN.

I think that when this gen of consoles first came out they were probably on par with the prices of a new gaming pc. due to the fact that people had to buy multiple systems since they were so unstable and broke all the damn time.

Now its a different story, most of the bugs have been resolved, as far as I know,and with the recent price drops of consoles I would have to say yes they are cheaper.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Kind of like trying to explain the difference between a TN monitor and IPS, you can tell them the viewing angles on TNs are bad, and they're washed out and the colours are inaccurate, but it doesn't sink in until you see a TN next to an IPS, then it's immediately clear just how big that difference is.
Click to expand...

I have a Dell 2005FPW SIPS next to a ASUS MS238H and everyone I know including myself thinks the Asus looks better. This is mainly due to the fact that cheaper IPS monitors suffer so bad from backlight bleed and quality issues that unless you are spending 500 plus on an IPS panel I wouldn't take my chances again.

Oh and when you are talking about a 200 monitor versus a 500 one that is a pretty big gap just to sell IPS for everyday internet browsing.

This is assuming people are buying desktops in the first place.
 
Ducman69 said:
Fact: PCs can be connected to televisions or receivers just like consoles.
Click to expand...

My roommate gave me a PS3. I can't play the fucking thing because my monitor doesn't support HDCP. Fucking retarded. PC? works with everything.
 
Ducman69 said:
Fact: PC software is cheaper than console software, all else equal.

Fact: PCs are multi-function devices, and most people need a computer one way or another.

Fact: A PC video card capable of Xbox 360 graphics quality (720p, usually no AA/AF, no vscan, poor draw distance, etc) is far less expensive than an Xbox 360.

Fact: A PC video card is useful for more than just playing video games.

Fact: A "console" means either Xbox, Wii, or PS3, so titles will be limited by the platform, so to "cover all bases" game wise requires the purchase of very redundant hardware.

Fact: Consoles offer very slow technological advancement (the Xbox 360 was designed in 2005, now nearly seven years later the hardware is obsolete yet a replacement is not available).

Fact: PCs can be connected to televisions or receivers just like consoles.

Fact: PCs offer more peripheral choices than consoles (and my PC can use Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii controllers to boot).

Fact: PC games often cater to a diverse mod community, enhancing the opportunities available to the player.

Fact: You have too much free time if you're still reading this.
Click to expand...

Rebuttal: PC software is not cheaper than console software when you figure the trade in value of console games. Plus you are assuming people are buying games. With services like gamefly your total cost of gaming for an infinite amount of games is locked in at 15 dollars times 12 per year assuming it doesn't inflate.

Rebuttal: Games are geared towards consoles and then ported. The ported game usually requires more hardware requirements to run on the PC and twice the bugs.

Rebuttal: Most people don't even know what a video card is and outside of playing flash video or decoding HD content, most onboard solutions today can do all that. Basically I can't see why I would recommend more than a 50 dollar video card for anything but gaming or hardcore video encoding/graphics works. All which your standard user isn't going for.

Rebuttal: Most console games are multiplatform with the exception that the Wii sucks. Fact being there are more major console specific titles every year than there are PC ones. Why? Consoles are more profitable.

Rebuttal: You have slower PC advancement due to the fact that people migrate to a console and the reason you haven't had a new console in 7 years is because of the massive R&D investment by companies who probably won't get it back because the consumer isn't interested in spending 500 dollars in hardware/controllers again. This one is economy based.

Rebuttal: Because of posture I have never seen anyone nor do I know anyone who has ever been able to game on a mouse and keyboard while sitting on your couch. You basically need a makeshift desk. Can't imagine playing some computer games like WoW/any mmos/SC2 with a controller.

Rebuttal: A Wii controller isn't natively supported like the Xbox controller is and even then you have to used Xpadder or some sort of keymapping utility for each game. Might as well just console game.

Rebuttal: This is true, although it depends on the game. I would argue that developers are going to limit this on all platforms due to sales of DLC, which by the way people still pay for. Basically is there any incentive for me to develop a mod that I will not be paid for when I could develop it for a company and make 15 bucks a pop? Plus with yearly release cycles like Ass. Creed/COD etc the time you develop a mod and people are playing another game.

I rebutted all your points.
 
piscian18 said:
My roommate gave me a PS3. I can't play the fucking thing because my monitor doesn't support HDCP. Fucking retarded. PC? works with everything.
Click to expand...

Don't blame consoles for that, you wouldn't be able to watch TV with most new HDMI receivers or Blu Ray players. You just own an older monitor or use a HDMI to DVI cable.
 
PC gaming is more involved and is not liked by idiots.

Consoles are easy to operate, and loved by idiots.

The Average person is an idiot.

Lets keep the idiots in their proper place...and thus out of our servers
 
Tudz said:
I don't. :D

I recently spent some time in the US and after watching the crap you guys call TV, I don't understand why most Americans would own a TV at all. :p Not that Australian TV is much better, but it seems you guys have so much more filler crap between the couple of decent programs.

But yeah, I don't own a TV, I know at least 2 other people who don't own TVs either.
Click to expand...

TV is more of a social aspect. Just because you own a TV doesn't mean you have to get cable. I watched netflix for about a year and rented movies etc. It was infinitely better. Only when I got renters did I get cable.
 
Syncade said:
PC gaming is more involved and is not liked by idiots.

Consoles are easy to operate, and loved by idiots.

The Average person is an idiot.

Lets keep the idiots in their proper place...and thus out of our servers
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
 
Tudz said:
But that's the thing... I dont know anyone who games significantly and has done it cheaper on PC than console, so while its theoretically possible, I don't think it really happens all that often and thus isn't realistic.

[snip]
Click to expand...

I do.

A guy I know has a fairly entry level laptop. So entry level in fact, that it is using Nvidia's integrated graphics. I wanna say its a 240m, but that's beside the point. He needed to get a laptop since he was starting college. So doling out the $500-700 was going to happen anyway.

By dropping the resolution, he plays SC 1&2, WoW, Homefront, BF:BC2, etc at reasonable frame rates. He's nowhere near 60 fps, but its playable. I've never loaded FRAPS onto it, but I don't doubt he's averaging somewhere in the 30 - 35 range. The price difference between getting this laptop and one with Intel's solution? $50.

Now take that and move it into the desktop space. Graphics cards are far more powerful, than their laptop counterparts, and for cheaper. Putting together a system based upon a GTX550m and an i3-2100 could be done for very, very little money, and you would have a very good experience, especially if you know how to shop for bargains and don't mind buying used parts. All it takes is dropping the resolution and quality settings.
 
To further make my point, I'm playing BF3 at over 50 frames damn near maxed out on my GTX460m at 1366 x 768. (yeah, I know, I paid through the teeth for nothing)

IIRC, to get equivalent performance on a desktop, you'd be looking at about a GTS450, maybe even something less powerful than that. Even a few generations old C2D likely wouldn't bottleneck a card that slow. It wouldn't take much to get a computer that would run virtually whatever you wanted at that resolution with really, really high frame rates.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
I do.

A guy I know has a fairly entry level laptop. So entry level in fact, that it is using Nvidia's integrated graphics. I wanna say its a 240m, but that's beside the point. He needed to get a laptop since he was starting college. So doling out the $500-700 was going to happen anyway.

By dropping the resolution, he plays SC 1&2, WoW, Homefront, BF:BC2, etc at reasonable frame rates. He's nowhere near 60 fps, but its playable. I've never loaded FRAPS onto it, but I don't doubt he's averaging somewhere in the 30 - 35 range. The price difference between getting this laptop and one with Intel's solution? $50.

Now take that and move it into the desktop space. Graphics cards are far more powerful, than their laptop counterparts, and for cheaper. Putting together a system based upon a GTX550m and an i3-2100 could be done for very, very little money, and you would have a very good experience, especially if you know how to shop for bargains and don't mind buying used parts. All it takes is dropping the resolution and quality settings.
Click to expand...

Yea but then you take away the mobility aspect which is why most people are buying laptops opposed to desktops any ways.

I can't count on my fingers people I know that still use a desktop PC as their primary computer.

I usually only am on mine if I need to play games or watch porn and I don't want work to find out about it.

SC2 and WoW are PC specific and no one here considers WoW people to be "hardcore" gamers.

Plus with that being said a xbox 360 would run Bad Company 2 better than the PC he has. Compare them side by side I bet you will be surprised.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
I do.

A guy I know has a fairly entry level laptop. So entry level in fact, that it is using Nvidia's integrated graphics. I wanna say its a 240m, but that's beside the point. He needed to get a laptop since he was starting college. So doling out the $500-700 was going to happen anyway.

By dropping the resolution, he plays SC 1&2, WoW, Homefront, BF:BC2, etc at reasonable frame rates. He's nowhere near 60 fps, but its playable. I've never loaded FRAPS onto it, but I don't doubt he's averaging somewhere in the 30 - 35 range. The price difference between getting this laptop and one with Intel's solution? $50.

Now take that and move it into the desktop space. Graphics cards are far more powerful, than their laptop counterparts, and for cheaper. Putting together a system based upon a GTX550m and an i3-2100 could be done for very, very little money, and you would have a very good experience, especially if you know how to shop for bargains and don't mind buying used parts. All it takes is dropping the resolution and quality settings.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so how long ago did he buy that laptop? What was he using before that laptop? Come back in a few years and tell me if he's still gaming on it :p I'm talking life cycle costs, not just one off costs.

eg.
When the 360 was out, my desktop was a Duron 800 with a TNT2 (yes, I know, it was old even then! I wasn't playing PC games back then, was mostly console gaming).

I then bought a 2nd hand P4 off a friend for a couple of hundred (or maybe just $100, I dont remember, was a while ago now), plus spent a little bit on an OS for it. Needed it for Uni, but I bought a 6600GT for sweet fuck all off another friend because he was upgrading and I was poor and wanted to play some games.

I then upgraded that, honestly don't remember how much it cost or what it was because the thing died soon after.

It was then smarter to just buy a new PC as everything in that was so old, got an E6600 and 8800GTS 320mb... this is the first system I had that was more powerful than the current gen consoles.

I then upgraded to an i5-750 (for work), and soon after swapped out the 8800GTS for a 2nd hand ATI 4870. I gave the 8800GTS to a friend, and it died a few months later... so I would have been forced to upgrade anyway, and he was forced to upgrade also!

The 4870 then started getting problems, it never died but it was making bad electrical noises and I didn't feel safe leaving it on when I wasn't home, and I figured it was gonna die soon anyway, so I upgraded (or side-graded, since it was much the same performance) to a GTX460 768mb. That's what I'm running right now.

That's my PC history just in ONE console life cycle that still hasn't finished.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
To further make my point, I'm playing BF3 at over 50 frames damn near maxed out on my GTX460m at 1366 x 768. (yeah, I know, I paid through the teeth for nothing)

IIRC, to get equivalent performance on a desktop, you'd be looking at about a GTS450, maybe even something less powerful than that. Even a few generations old C2D likely wouldn't bottleneck a card that slow. It wouldn't take much to get a computer that would run virtually whatever you wanted at that resolution with really, really high frame rates.
Click to expand...

yea but with what enabled?

have you guys even seen the BF3 graphics comparisons? outside of Ultra the Xbox 360 with the texture patch looks pretty much comparable to high quality settings on the PC.

If you are saying you can run BF3 on high with a GTS450 and an old C2D then I call bullshit.

At 1920x1080i I am running at high without AA and on my rig I am pulling 40ish maybe.
 
roaf85 said:
Yea but then you take away the mobility aspect which is why most people are buying laptops opposed to desktops any ways.

I can't count on my fingers people I know that still use a desktop PC as their primary computer.

I usually only am on mine if I need to play games or watch porn and I don't want work to find out about it.

SC2 and WoW are PC specific and no one here considers WoW people to be "hardcore" gamers.

Plus with that being said a xbox 360 would run Bad Company 2 better than the PC he has. Compare them side by side I bet you will be surprised.
Click to expand...

The point is, for most people's wants when it comes to gaming, the bar isn't very high. And I've played BC2 on the 360. Its nothing to write home about. And remember, this is still a computer that cost an extra $50. Put the $250 dollars you would put toward a console and into your computer, and that puts you solidly in the territory of the GTX550m. Not the fastest card around, but faster than my 460m if what I've read is to be believed.

EDIT:Nope, I'm wrong. the 555 is slower than the 460 by 11%. Even still, that's not horrible.

And if you don't think WoW has hardcore gamers...

Tudz said:
Yeah, so how long ago did he buy that laptop? What was he using before that laptop? Come back in a few years and tell me if he's still gaming on it :p I'm talking life cycle costs, not just one off costs.
Click to expand...

He bought his laptop a year and a half ago. I've had my 360 for two and a half years, and I've had to buy another one after the NIC in the first failed. With a PC that could have been a $50 fix. With the 360, I had to buy another. This is completely overlooking the fact that many, many people have had RRODs.

EDIT:And laptop lifespans are shorter than consoles or desktops. In 2-3 years, I'd likely be replacing it anyway. At which point, I again spend the extra $100 - $150 and continue playing like nothing happened.

roaf85 said:
yea but with what enabled?

have you guys even seen the BF3 graphics comparisons? outside of Ultra the Xbox 360 with the texture patch looks pretty much comparable to high quality settings on the PC.

If you are saying you can run BF3 on high with a GTS450 and an old C2D then I call bullshit.

At 1920x1080i I am running at high without AA and on my rig I am pulling 40ish maybe.
Click to expand...

Everything except ambient occlusion, motion blur, and traditional AA. Everything else is a mix of high and ultra.

And I'm saying you could run it at a lowered resolution. At 1080, I'm pulling 20-25 frames.

EDIT:

Graphics Quality--custom
Texture Quality--ultra
Shadow Quality--ultra
Effects Quality--high
Mesh Quality--ultra
Terrain Quality--ultra
Terrain Decoration--ultra
Anti-aliasing Deferred--off
Anti-Aliasing Post--high
Motion Blur--off
Anisotrophic Filter--16x
Ambient Occlusion--off

fullscreen resolution 1366 x768 60.00Hz

GTS 450:
192 CUDA cores
processor clock 1566
memory clock 1804
memory interface width 128 bit
Texture fill rate 25.1 billion/sec
memory bandwidth 57.7 gb/sec

GTX460m
192 CUDA cores
processor clock 1350
memory clock 1250
memory interface width 192 bit
Texture fill rate 16.1 billion/sec
memory bandwidth 60.0 gb/sec

Fairly comparable if you ask me.

Comparing CPUs:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-740QM-Notebook-Processor.31146.0.html (scroll for 3Dmark06 benchies)
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/9343059 (scroll for CPU score)

Again, fairly comparable. And in gaming, you likely wouldn't notice a difference between the two since the GPU will bottleneck long before the CPU.
 
Last edited:
BigJayDogg3 said:
The point is, for most people's wants when it comes to gaming, the bar isn't very high. And I've played BC2 on the 360. Its nothing to write home about. And remember, this is still a computer that cost an extra $50. Put the $250 dollars you would put toward a console and into your computer, and that puts you solidly in the territory of the GTX550m. Not the fastest card around, but faster than my 460m if what I've read is to be believed.

EDIT:Nope, I'm wrong. the 555 is slower than the 460 by 11%. Even still, that's not horrible.

And if you don't think WoW has hardcore gamers...



He bought his laptop a year and a half ago. I've had my 360 for two and a half years, and I've had to buy another one after the NIC in the first failed. With a PC that could have been a $50 fix. With the 360, I had to buy another. This is completely overlooking the fact that many, many people have had RRODs.

EDIT:And laptop lifespans are shorter than consoles or desktops. In 2-3 years, I'd likely be replacing it anyway. At which point, I again spend the extra $100 - $150 and continue playing like nothing happened.



Everything except ambient occlusion, motion blur, and traditional AA. Everything else is a mix of high and ultra.

And I'm saying you could run it at a lowered resolution. At 1080, I'm pulling 20-25 frames.

EDIT:

Graphics Quality--custom
Texture Quality--ultra
Shadow Quality--ultra
Effects Quality--high
Mesh Quality--ultra
Terrain Quality--ultra
Terrain Decoration--ultra
Anti-aliasing Deferred--off
Anti-Aliasing Post--high
Motion Blur--off
Anisotrophic Filter--16x
Ambient Occlusion--off

fullscreen resolution 1366 x768 60.00Hz

GTS 450:
192 CUDA cores
processor clock 1566
memory clock 1804
memory interface width 128 bit
Texture fill rate 25.1 billion/sec
memory bandwidth 57.7 gb/sec

GTX460m
192 CUDA cores
processor clock 1350
memory clock 1250
memory interface width 192 bit
Texture fill rate 16.1 billion/sec
memory bandwidth 60.0 gb/sec

Fairly comparable if you ask me.

Comparing CPUs:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-740QM-Notebook-Processor.31146.0.html (scroll for 3Dmark06 benchies)
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/9343059 (scroll for CPU score)

Again, fairly comparable. And in gaming, you likely wouldn't notice a difference between the two since the GPU will bottleneck long before the CPU.
Click to expand...

I will address this:

1. My point with WoW is that people try to say "PC gamer" vs "console gamers". What the fuck is the definition. My girlfriend only plays WoW on a computer. By definition she is a PC gamer, but she wouldn't know how to enable AA in a game if she tried.

2. Even if you can run it at a lower resolution at the end of the day it is a numbers game. All I am saying is that if you look at the comparisons you see some comparos where the Xbox 360 is against a machine that would cost close to a grand with a 1,000 graphics card and the quality is so minimal that you would have to be completely anal or the superman eyes to notice it while everything else is blowing up in front of you.

So therefore if BF3 runs at something like a high setting at 1680x1050 with compared to a PC than that is the bar for 200 dollars. Anything under that is a mute point.

3. The problem with investing 250 extra dollars into my PC is the fact that everyone isn't going to do that and you have things like what I mentioned above with the PC software still having no residual value.

When your friends all own an Xbox, but they could own a tablet/desktop/laptop from work etc you have a standard where everyone can game...for cheap.
 
roaf85 said:
I will address this:

1. My point with WoW is that people try to say "PC gamer" vs "console gamers". What the fuck is the definition. My girlfriend only plays WoW on a computer. By definition she is a PC gamer, but she wouldn't know how to enable AA in a game if she tried.

2. Even if you can run it at a lower resolution at the end of the day it is a numbers game. All I am saying is that if you look at the comparisons you see some comparos where the Xbox 360 is against a machine that would cost close to a grand with a 1,000 graphics card and the quality is so minimal that you would have to be completely anal or the superman eyes to notice it while everything else is blowing up in front of you.

So therefore if BF3 runs at something like a high setting at 1680x1050 with compared to a PC than that is the bar for 200 dollars. Anything under that is a mute point.

3. The problem with investing 250 extra dollars into my PC is the fact that everyone isn't going to do that and you have things like what I mentioned above with the PC software still having no residual value.

When your friends all own an Xbox, but they could own a tablet/desktop/laptop from work etc you have a standard where everyone can game...for cheap.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

1. Valid point is valid. Same goes for Mr. Laptop guy. WoW was running at 1024 x 768 for months, and Homefront was flat out unplayable until I changed settings for both.

2. I don't think I have superman eyes, and I don't have a $1k graphics card (though I wouldn't turn down $1k worth of graphics cards). Maybe the difference is all in my head, but I can tell the difference. Or at least I think I can. Maybe I should go A/B BF3 and see what I can see.

3. That an argument against all gaming. If my friends have a PS3 and I have a 360, the same argument arises.

I'll admit that PC gaming may not be "cheaper" but to say it costs so much more that its outside the ballpark I will disagree on.

One thing I will say is that console gaming is far, far easier. Pop a disc in a drive and play. With PC gaming, rarely is it that simple.
 
Syncade said:
You're denying that the average person is an idiot?

You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

I don't consider myself average. If you are going to to say people are stupid, at least have some sort of opinion or realistic explanation to back it up.

The dumbest people I ever played video games with existed on the PC....in WoW. Not because it is a PC game, but because it has 10 million people playing.
 
Its really not if you want to actually play games as theyre meant to be...sure you can spend 500 and get console quality but whats the point? It still costs 3000-4000 to max every game out at a FPS that never drops below 60 (EVER)


PC gaming costs tower over console gaming, especially if you're near or at enthusiast level
 
RaZoRbLaDeD said:
Its really not if you want to actually play games as theyre meant to be...sure you can spend 500 and get console quality but whats the point? It still costs 3500-4000 to max every game out at a FPS that never drops below 60 (EVER)
Click to expand...
Because a $100 video card in virtually any kind of system will automatically make it better than a current-gen console. And that is cheaper than a console, actually... :|
The consoles are like 5 years old now, c'mon... You know how much tech has improved since then. Even a mid-range system from 2006 was on-par with the consoles.

E6600 + 8800GTX is from 2006 and they were both already faster than a console.
When you see those names now you think "old pieces of shit worth $30" and remember your XCrap3Shitty is worse than those.
 
piscian18 said:
One thing to note. Every game thats ever come out on PC is still playable on PC. The same can't be said of consoles. If I wanted to play an older game I have to have to buy an older system. I have to have an entire room dedicated to having all my consoles and games. PC takes up a small corner. You also still need physical media for console gaming which is fucking annoying as well. Steam/Origin/GOG/D2D/GMG etc have made me one portable mutherfucker.
Click to expand...

That's not always true. Everytime their is a major OS switch you have games that stop working and some can be modified as a work around some can't. With windows 9x to nt systems I can think of south park's shooter not working. Going from xp to vista/7 also dropped some comparability. Keeping an old pc around to play them is the same as keeping an old console and for a while at least virtual pc software wouldn't run the stuff fast enough(although it would now).

roaf85 said:
I have to say it is a total bullshit argument to include the price of the TV into a PC versus Console debate. Even if you never game do you know anyone that doesn't own a TV?

Even a little shitty one, that can still play console games.

I know plenty of people that use an IPAD, massive smart phone or laptop as their primary computer.
Click to expand...

I know a few people without TV's but I agree with your point. The console will run off a computer monitor fine. For a few years I had my xbox hooked up to my second 22inch lcd at my desk. The TV shouldn't have been on the quote. In the end it doesn't matter. The guy who wrote the article comes off as an idiot.
 
Pc gaming is not cheaper plain and simple. Sure, you can say this and that and twist things all you want to make it look otherwise but in real talk and terms it is far more expensive imo. One of the reasons console gaming towers over pc gaming is because its cheaper, and also more convenient.
 
PC gaming is a better gaming experience so obviously it will be more expensive. Same way a PS3 and 360 are more expensive than a Wii.
 
I have found PC gaming cheaper for several reasons but this article was terribly written. First of all you do not need to be that good at checking prices to see for what he built he could have had a much better system maybe there is some tax in Britain or something.

Second you cannot compare independent items. The monitor / TV was terrible, I play with an HTPC on a TV sometimes, and you can console game on monitors and lots of people do it. The internet connection also is odd, you are going to have that with any house even if you just face book. XBL gold is legit though but alot of people who play xbox tell me XBL ends up being something you pay for no matter what because between the deals they offer and what not you might as well just get it.

So the point is for most people things like TVs and Internet connections are going to always be paid for in the house so they cannot be added to the price.

The big myth on the PC side is that it costs you the full price of a PC. Once again you need a PC in most homes and so making it a gaming PC is just the extra cost to get you there not the whole cost of the PC. Also there is a ridiculous lack of comparing quality. Alot of people ask me how much did you spend on your rig and when I tell them they say see no chance that is too expensive, and I say well you don't have a $150 mechanical keyboard you can enjoy on your PC, you can game with any keyboard but the quality on PC is completely up to you to decide. The $50 G500 mouse gives a level of precision and control a console will probably never see in the next 10 years. I can run alot of games faster than 120 fps on 120hz monitors. Many people just think you need to spend alot of money but the fact is you do not it is simply a choice that is more common of PC gamers because they have already decided that settling for low quality is not acceptable. Where as alot of console gamers simply do not even know what FPS is and call everything that happens on the console just "lag" not realizing that it is actually a ton of different things like the fact you are only running 30FPS and have 100 ms input lag and ghosting on your TV. Because everyone has the same controller no one asked why the controller has input lag. The competition has mad the experience on a PC 100x better than a console will ever achieve if you start taking in the whole experience. Every time I goto a friends and play xbox I cannot believe how long it takes to load a level / start a game.

And finally you do not need all that stuff to game very well and competitively on a PC. I knew lots of people who were some of the best in various games who ran what I thought were pretty old crappy computers. $5 keyboards basic mice and so on.
 
PC gaming is not cheaper for me. It can be for others though. For the past 3 years, a decent PC has generally been less than a $200 video card away from a superior, often vastly superior, to 360/PS3 gaming experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top