Unreal Engine 4 PS4 vs PC

[ShuttleLuv]

Too subjective, maybe I shouldn't have posted this. The whole point of this post was that the differences are becoming less apparant, there are obviously some differences to be had in lighting and such but nothing that drops your jaw. Joe average would see this running on both and not know the difference. Anywho I don't think I should've posted this with ps4 not being out and unknowns about the hardware.

 

[kashifme21]

Too subjective, maybe I shouldn't have posted this. The whole point of this post was that the differences are becoming less apparant, there are obviously some differences to be had in lighting and such but nothing that drops your jaw. Joe average would see this running on both and not know the difference. Anywho I don't think I should've posted this with ps4 not being out and unknowns about the hardware.

Well the games arent even out yet. All we are seeing is console makers cherry picking what suits their marketing purposes the best and showing it to the masses.

Let the games roll, once that happens and devs start pushing graphics. You will see consoles pushed back to 720p no AA, 30fps just like current gen.

Fact of the matter is game developers need to show shiny graphics to sell new games. In order to do that they must push hardware to the max. Devs know screen shots dont show FPS, hell most console gamers dont even know what FPS is and since they play from a distance they cant really tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Hence the choice for Devs to push their games is easy. Limit console versions to 720p 30fps, so they can push the graphics on the games. Remember in todays day and age screen shots sell a game.

Hence again wait for the games to roll before making conclusions. I think we will see a repeat of history ;-) it just has a way of repeating itself.

 

[naticus]

I am excited about the future of the next gen consoles especially the PS4, but I think we can all agree it will be equal to a mid-range desktop. I have seen these videos and have read about the hardware and I will say it again; I just hope it can do 1080p60fps on all games in DX11.

I would argue that 80% of [H] has a desktop/laptop that is already more powerful than what the PS4 will be capable of doing. Can you imagine if 5 years from now all it takes to max any game is a crossfire 7970 or SLI 680?

 

[Matthew Kane]

It took me a minute looking at the video pause play to distinguish differences.

Some pointers:

1. ps4 looks impressive at some scenes it is near the same quality as the pc.
2. at 54 seconds mark and 36 the lightening effects and reflection looks a bit more lighter but more natural looking compared to the ps4
3. at some scenes in between the ps4 shadows rendered look at a bit too light in contrast to the pc, the pc's shadows are bit more darker
4. armor textures look more crisp and less jagged, possibly due to AA and AF settings on high, there is a slight bit of blurriness to the ps4 textures.
5. Personally I would call the PS4 a perfect gaming pc for the average consumer which 1. does not cost a lot (rumoured at $500-600), 2. just the like launch of ps3 at the time it would take a pc almost double in cost of hardware to match the graphics of the ps3 then, a $500-600 gaming pc will not look as impressive the ps4 nor will it be able to run next gen games smoothly at high or near maxed out settings. You [H] pc guys should give it a break and agree that the ps4 is impressive. imo and I know some are going to get mad. Oh well. I for one am buying a ps4 to replace my pc for gaming purposes, constant upgrading this and that is a bit too rich for my blood these days.

 

[naticus]

It took me a minute looking at the video pause play to distinguish differences.

Some pointers:

1. ps4 looks impressive at some scenes it is near the same quality as the pc.
2. at 54 seconds mark and 36 the lightening effects and reflection looks a bit more lighter but more natural looking compared to the ps4
3. at some scenes in between the ps4 shadows rendered look at a bit too light in contrast to the pc, the pc's shadows are bit more darker
4. armor textures look more crisp and less jagged, possibly due to AA and AF settings on high, there is a slight bit of blurriness to the ps4 textures.
5. Personally I would call the PS4 a perfect gaming pc for the average consumer which 1. does not cost a lot (rumoured at $500-600), 2. just the like launch of ps3 at the time it would take a pc almost double in cost of hardware to match the graphics of the ps3 then, a $500-600 gaming pc will not look as impressive the ps4 nor will it be able to run next gen games smoothly at high or near maxed out settings. You [H] pc guys should give it a break and agree that the ps4 is impressive. imo and I know some are going to get mad. Oh well. I for one am buying a ps4 to replace my pc for gaming purposes, constant upgrading this and that is a bit too rich for my blood these days.

You can build a gaming PC right now for $600 that is more powerful than the PS4 and it wil last throughout the next-gen 'era'. You don't have to upgrade every year or two, I am not sure why people always say this. To get the same graphic fidelity/quality for the life of the ps4 era, anything over a 7870 tahiti,660ti will do. And in 2-3 years you can get another card and be good for even longer.

Like I said I am excited for the PS4, I might get one if their are some exclusives that are worth it ( Red Dead Redemption sequel anyone?). But if most of the library of games catalog are also on the PC, then I will stick with the PC-- as it is the superior system. Also I play a ton of FPS (Planetside2, BL2, COD, CSgo,etc,.) and FPS on a console using a controller is derp.

 

[Nytegard]

Too subjective, maybe I shouldn't have posted this. The whole point of this post was that the differences are becoming less apparant, there are obviously some differences to be had in lighting and such but nothing that drops your jaw. Joe average would see this running on both and not know the difference. Anywho I don't think I should've posted this with ps4 not being out and unknowns about the hardware.

No offense, but I need to bring this up. I really hate when people bring the argument of "I've been here from the beginning". It comes off as arrogant, which I know you did not mean too, as it implies that you know more than another person because you're older than them. This, however, is not a discussion between parents and their child. You're assuming that you've been playing video games longer than the people replying. This may or may not be true though. Certainly bringing up glQuake as a starting point does not help things, as I can guarantee you many people here in the forums have been playing video games for at least a decade or two before that.

And there's no doubt that differences become less apparent. Video games can't improve constantly on a linear basis. It's impossible. Sooner or later every technology hits a wall and stagnation occurs.

Anyway, another problem with the age factor is that this is subjective. Age doesn't improve a person's ability to objectively base differences in visual quality (Sadly, it does the opposite honestly). But also, not everyone is able to judge visual quality the same. What you view as tiny changes, other people might see those first and see major changes. We may all have eyes, but we don't perceive the world the same way.

 

[tetutato]

Does anyone know what spec the PC demo is run on?

 

[Aix.]

You [H] pc guys should give it a break and agree that the ps4 is impressive. imo and I know some are going to get mad. Oh well. I for one am buying a ps4 to replace my pc for gaming purposes, constant upgrading this and that is a bit too rich for my blood these days.

Whether the PS4 is "impressive" or not isn't what the OP was about; the OP was saying there wasn't much of a difference between the two videos, and many of us pointed out many differences. Just because you're willing to settle for a PS4 doesn't mean the rest of us need to lower our standards along with you. Just buy your console and be happy.

Considering that most console gamers will be upgrading from 2007 hardware (or whatever), of course the new gen is going to be really impressive...to console gamers. I don't see how anyone who's been following PC games and performance the past couple of years could have any other reaction than "impressive - for consoles".

 

[Matthew Kane]

You can build a gaming PC right now for $600 that is more powerful than the PS4 and it wil last throughout the next-gen 'era'. You don't have to upgrade every year or two, I am not sure why people always say this. To get the same graphic fidelity/quality for the life of the ps4 era, anything over a 7870 tahiti,660ti will do. And in 2-3 years you can get another card and be good for even longer.

Like I said I am excited for the PS4, I might get one if their are some exclusives that are worth it ( Red Dead Redemption sequel anyone?). But if most of the library of games catalog are also on the PC, then I will stick with the PC-- as it is the superior system. Also I play a ton of FPS (Planetside2, BL2, COD, CSgo,etc,.) and FPS on a console using a controller is derp.

$600 better speced than the PS4? Really please give me a list on the parts. I will be buying the PS4 for Fifa and GTA V only. Fuck the rest.

 

[trick0502]

I love the computer more than any console, but I see the changing shift. There really is very little to differentiate anymore.

Wait three years and see what the newest ps4 game look like compared to pc.

 

[Matthew Kane]

Wait three years and see what the newest ps4 game look like compared to pc.

True. With computer's being constantly upgradable, a console is "fixed" in terms of hardware until the a newer successor comes out in the later years.

 

[Nytegard]

True. With computer's being constantly upgradable, a console is "fixed" in terms of hardware until the a newer successor comes out in the later years.

Unfortunately, with improving technology comes increasing development time & cost. This is a major reason why PC games don't look much better than their current console brethren typically, excluding things like higher resolution and textures.

Sure, the Geforce 1080 GTX will probably run @ 4p resolution at 100 FPS, but will Activision really make use of it with Call of Duty: Zombie Opocalypse 9?

 

[Aix.]

This is a major reason why PC games don't look much better than their current console brethren typically, excluding things like higher resolution and textures.

So BF3 looks pretty much the same on PC and consoles? Right...

 

[naticus]

$600 better speced than the PS4? Really please give me a list on the parts. I will be buying the PS4 for Fifa and GTA V only. Fuck the rest.

gpu : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202025

cpu : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962

MB : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280

RAM : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104231

PSU : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139028

HDD : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339

Case : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147153

Total : $648 USD

And ^that is much better than a PS4. I can't wait for the PS4, like I said but with prices on hardware these days, compared to ~ 2005, you can build a PC that is far better than a console like the PS4 and....and in 2-3 years if you want to upgrade you can-- get a new GPU.

 

[wonderfield]

Does anyone know what spec the PC demo is run on?

One GTX 680 probably paired with a reasonably high-end Intel CPU. Unknown resolution, but I would guess 720p.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

No offense, but I need to bring this up. I really hate when people bring the argument of "I've been here from the beginning". It comes off as arrogant, which I know you did not mean too, as it implies that you know more than another person because you're older than them. This, however, is not a discussion between parents and their child. You're assuming that you've been playing video games longer than the people replying. This may or may not be true though. Certainly bringing up glQuake as a starting point does not help things, as I can guarantee you many people here in the forums have been playing video games for at least a decade or two before that.

And there's no doubt that differences become less apparent. Video games can't improve constantly on a linear basis. It's impossible. Sooner or later every technology hits a wall and stagnation occurs.

Anyway, another problem with the age factor is that this is subjective. Age doesn't improve a person's ability to objectively base differences in visual quality (Sadly, it does the opposite honestly). But also, not everyone is able to judge visual quality the same. What you view as tiny changes, other people might see those first and see major changes. We may all have eyes, but we don't perceive the world the same way.

No it means I've been through the rounds and it's insulting for anyone here to tell me there is stark differences between the vids when there is not. I disagree wholeheartedly, think what you all want.The old days showed stark differences, which I referenced, as I lived it.

Thanks.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Whether the PS4 is "impressive" or not isn't what the OP was about; the OP was saying there wasn't much of a difference between the two videos, and many of us pointed out many differences. Just because you're willing to settle for a PS4 doesn't mean the rest of us need to lower our standards along with you. Just buy your console and be happy.

Considering that most console gamers will be upgrading from 2007 hardware (or whatever), of course the new gen is going to be really impressive...to console gamers. I don't see how anyone who's been following PC games and performance the past couple of years could have any other reaction than "impressive - for consoles".

Again, who here is an expert? You guys saying you pointed out much differences....how do you know for sure? Do you work for Epic?

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

Again, who here is an expert? You guys saying you pointed out much differences....how do you know for sure? Do you work for Epic?

Epic does not have a monopoly on eyes.

 

[wonderfield]

You can objectively quantify differences between the two using any garden-variety image differencing algorithm. Quantifying frame rate differences is trickier, but certainly not impossible.

Suffice it to say that you can put a relatively accurate number to the differences if you convert one video to the color space of the other.

 

[naticus]

Again, who here is an expert? You guys saying you pointed out much differences....how do you know for sure? Do you work for Epic?

Because it is blatantly obvious maybe? I can't imagined how much further a gap there would be without the video compression. You may need to get your eyes checked.

 

[Flogger23m]

gpu : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202025

cpu : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962

MB : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280

RAM : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104231

PSU : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139028

HDD : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339

Case : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147153

Total : $648 USD

And ^that is much better than a PS4. I can't wait for the PS4, like I said but with prices on hardware these days, compared to ~ 2005, you can build a PC that is far better than a console like the PS4 and....and in 2-3 years if you want to upgrade you can-- get a new GPU.

And do you plan to game on Linux as well? If not, add $100 for Windows 7/8. That brings you up to $748, and I assume that is before shipping. Likewise, you might need a DVD/CD drive to install drivers & Windows. So add another $20 to it; $768.

Will you be able to game without a mouse/keyboard/controller (included with PS4)? Didn't think so; add $30 for a keyboard and $30 for a mouse. $828 total.

Can you run newer titles like Crysis 2/3 and Tomb Raider (even at reduced graphical quality, no AA) with a 7900 and X1900 as well as you can with a PS3/360? I am not sure, but I am doubtful. My point being a console will age better in terms of optimization even if the hardware is extremely slow.

PC gaming is better (IMO) and you get what you pay for, but a console is cheaper than a gaming PC.

 

[kashifme21]

And do you plan to game on Linux as well? If not, add $100 for Windows 7/8. That brings you up to $748, and I assume that is before shipping. Likewise, you might need a DVD/CD drive to install drivers & Windows. So add another $20 to it; $768.

Will you be able to game without a mouse/keyboard/controller (included with PS4)? Didn't think so; add $30 for a keyboard and $30 for a mouse. $828 total.

Can you run newer titles like Crysis 2/3 and Tomb Raider (even at reduced graphical quality, no AA) with a 7900 and X1900 as well as you can with a PS3/360? I am not sure, but I am doubtful. My point being a console will age better in terms of optimization even if the hardware is extremely slow.

PC gaming is better (IMO) and you get what you pay for, but a console is cheaper than a gaming PC.

You need to understand PCs are a long term investment. I have been using the same Keyboard, Mouse, Speakers, casing, Dvd drive etc for years some of them are over 5 years old and i still dont intend to change em.

Also consider this same PC can play literally any game the person bought in the past 25 years. PS4 cant play PS3 games let alone PS2, PS1 games. The loss of not being able to play games a person bought on PS3 could mount to thousands of usds.

Now you can tell me the PS3 wont die as soon as the person picks up the PS4, Yes it wont, but eventually it will, which means the person will need to keep rebuying every time it fails. Same goes for the PS2. Hence its such a nightmare to maintain BC for the software you buy on console. Not to mention every game bought on console costs 10-20usd more.

Lets not forget Current consoles while trying to imitate PCs are made of extremely cheap parts and are built in air restrictive boxes. Which means the hardware dies quickly. All my friends pretty much had to buy 2-3 Xboxs PS3's just get through this gen. I expect the same to happen next gen. PCs just tend to last alot longer and when something does go bad, they come with huge warranties and even then when some part does go bad and is out of warranty it can be cheaply replaced, you dont have to go out buy the entire PC again. Hell to get a PS3 repaired costs 160usd.

When you add all of that up in the long run console gaming is much more expensive than PC.

 

[Aix.]

You can objectively quantify differences between the two using any garden-variety image differencing algorithm. Quantifying frame rate differences is trickier, but certainly not impossible.

Suffice it to say that you can put a relatively accurate number to the differences if you convert one video to the color space of the other.

No man I was there when Super Mario got 16-bit and you can't tell me there's a difference.

 

[ZaC851]

And do you plan to game on Linux as well? If not, add $100 for Windows 7/8. That brings you up to $748, and I assume that is before shipping. Likewise, you might need a DVD/CD drive to install drivers & Windows. So add another $20 to it; $768.

Will you be able to game without a mouse/keyboard/controller (included with PS4)? Didn't think so; add $30 for a keyboard and $30 for a mouse. $828 total.

Can you run newer titles like Crysis 2/3 and Tomb Raider (even at reduced graphical quality, no AA) with a 7900 and X1900 as well as you can with a PS3/360? I am not sure, but I am doubtful. My point being a console will age better in terms of optimization even if the hardware is extremely slow.

PC gaming is better (IMO) and you get what you pay for, but a console is cheaper than a gaming PC.

make sure to add the cost of a tv to your ps4, since you can't game without it. No vizio poverty crap either

"But but but, most people already have a tv!". Most people already have things like a keyboard and mouse also.

 

[Sixthsense]

This is a silly argument , PC gaming will never be cheaper then console gaming. End of discussion . If a 8800 GTX could run today's games at 30 FPS at low to medium settings . Then yeah I'll agree PC gaming is cheaper. I'm not even going to argue the fact you could rent games on the console side or even selling them (used)


PC gaming was never cheap, sure you could build a $600--$800 system now. Will it play games at 30 FPS at 1080p and beyond? ( hell even 720p) until next gen? the answer is a flat out no.

I probably upgraded my card 3 times since the 360 and PS3's release just to get decent frame rates.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

So many miss guided people here.

Just wait until I'm done testing my Pentium D setup with 2GB DDR2 RAM and an X 1950 XTX card.. yes folks, that's hardware from 2006.

Currently I am playing through Battlefield Bad Company 2 (2010 title) and I ran into a slight issue with Skyrim. For some reason Skyrim requires a sound device to be installed on the PC before it will even play; since the motherboard I am using is out of an HP, trying to find Windows 7 drivers for it is impossible so I'm looking for another motherboard, motherboard/cpu or a sound card with W7 drivers so I can get it to at least try to load.

After that, I will try playing Tomb Raider.

Right now I am in the process of moving, so it's all packed up atm.

 

[GuyClinch]

The disadvantage of consoles is that its a closed software system. You are not going to see the same kind of deals you can get on PC because of this, IMHO. You are ceding control to a big slow corporation.

It's a troubling trend for the hobbyist - as its what computer companies have done all along. Steve Jobs wanted a closed system the whole time - and it was only Wonziak who prevented that (software wise) and he still managed to close off the hardware side.

In the Apple world view they would want to see you an electronic box for everything - and with the help of the phone they are almost pulling it off. It was only because of few hilarious mistakes by IBM that we got not only OPEN PC software (General Purpose computers - they run what the user wants not what the corporation wants) but Open hardware.

Too sweeten the deal though console makers have done two things..
1) Made hardware that runs much much much better games for the price. (So called purpose built hardware). Yes the NES was awesome back in the day for games compared to a PC
2) created exclusive content which will only run on their machine.

Interestingly with the PS4 it seems like Option 1 isn't working so well.
So expect option 2 to really be strong.

 

[Ruoh]

The PC version of the video is clearly better. Anyone that says otherwise needs their eyes examined.

 

[Spidey329]

Having gone back to watch the PC one from 11 months ago and then the PS4 one. I can say that the PC looks more detailed. It has more particle/shader effects going.

Just my eye, not biased, as I'd really like the PS4 to look the same.

 

[kashifme21]

This is a silly argument , PC gaming will never be cheaper then console gaming. End of discussion . If a 8800 GTX could run today's games at 30 FPS at low to medium settings . Then yeah I'll agree PC gaming is cheaper. I'm not even going to argue the fact you could rent games on the console side or even selling them (used)


PC gaming was never cheap, sure you could build a $600--$800 system now. Will it play games at 30 FPS at 1080p and beyond? ( hell even 720p) until next gen? the answer is a flat out no.

I probably upgraded my card 3 times since the 360 and PS3's release just to get decent frame rates.

Heres some videos of 8800GTX running todays games in 1080p med to high settings:

Tombraider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=outsDtByQwo

Farcry 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4625Wbb0ORs

BF3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_MmOgBw1Q

Bottomline is graphics have been pretty much stagnant the last 4-5 years. This is because of games having to run on consoles too. Which is why even PCs dont need upgrades all the time to run games like they used to back in early 2000's. This is the reason why 6 year old hardware like 8800GTX even today can play most games in 1080p and do it at much better settings than consoles can at 720p.

PC gaming being expensive is a myth imo. Specially considering how much cheaper games are on PC and the fact you get to keep them once the gen is over.

 

[Sixthsense]

^^ If this was the case we wouldn't need to upgrade. I bet you did a quick google search for that one, because he is running at 1680x1050. I remember paying $400-$500 for my GTX .

 

[Flogger23m]

make sure to add the cost of a tv to your ps4, since you can't game without it. No vizio poverty crap either

"But but but, most people already have a tv!". Most people already have things like a keyboard and mouse also.

And then we can add the cost of a monitor on the PC side to be fair. You're picking the argument in your favor which doesn't work out in the real world. With the console you get the controller, buying a part built PC you don't, so it must be included in the price.

And no, most people use laptops, not desktops. No one I know uses a discrete keyboard, PC monitor or mouse with their laptop or tablet. Most people don't have extra hardware just lying around.

Fact is, the console will be cheaper even if it is $600. You get what you pay for. Want quality, mods ect.? Pay more, get a PC. Don't want it? Pay less, get a console.

You need to understand PCs are a long term investment. I have been using the same Keyboard, Mouse, Speakers, casing, Dvd drive etc for years some of them are over 5 years old and i still dont intend to change em.

Also consider this same PC can play literally any game the person bought in the past 25 years. PS4 cant play PS3 games let alone PS2, PS1 games. The loss of not being able to play games a person bought on PS3 could mount to thousands of usds.

Now you can tell me the PS3 wont die as soon as the person picks up the PS4, Yes it wont, but eventually it will, which means the person will need to keep rebuying every time it fails. Same goes for the PS2. Hence its such a nightmare to maintain BC for the software you buy on console. Not to mention every game bought on console costs 10-20usd more.

Lets not forget Current consoles while trying to imitate PCs are made of extremely cheap parts and are built in air restrictive boxes. Which means the hardware dies quickly. All my friends pretty much had to buy 2-3 Xboxs PS3's just get through this gen. I expect the same to happen next gen. PCs just tend to last alot longer and when something does go bad, they come with huge warranties and even then when some part does go bad and is out of warranty it can be cheaply replaced, you dont have to go out buy the entire PC again. Hell to get a PS3 repaired costs 160usd.

When you add all of that up in the long run console gaming is much more expensive than PC.

So you are going to tell me a PC from 2006 will work just fine for current games right now in 2013? Does Crysis 3 run as good on your GTX 7900/ circa 2006 PC as it does on a PS3 with similar graphical quality and frame rates? I doubt it. There is more than raw performance to take into account. I doubt the latest games are using 7 year old hardware to its fullest potential as the driver/compatibility focus has shifted to current hardware and to 3-4 year old hardware.

As for console longevity, they last about just as long, save for the original 360s. Plenty of people are using their original PS3s and PS2s just fine.

 

[Nytegard]

And then we can add the cost of a monitor on the PC side to be fair. You're picking the argument in your favor which doesn't work out in the real world. With the console you get the controller, buying a part built PC you don't, so it must be included in the price.

The point of his post was not that you needed to include a TV with the console, but that it's a stupid argument that consoles need only to take into account the console when PC users have to include the monitor, mouse, internet connection, electricity cost, mortgage/rent on the house you live in, car to get to work, etc. Almost everyone already has a keyboard and monitor, so nobody in their right mind would repurchase one unless they were already planning on upgrading.

I agree, consoles are initially cheaper than PCs. Consoles are typically sold as a loss leader for the software to pick up the discounted price. Whether or not you do that is up to the individual. The more console games you purchase, the more expensive the overall cost comes out to.

And I also agree that if you compare specs 1 to 1, consoles will typically win out in quality due to less hardware abstraction layers. That being said though, if you had a bleeding edge computer at the time of the console introduction, it will almost always be better and look better, even on games near the end of the consoles life line.

But as another person in a previous post stated, comparing PC costs to console costs is stupid. Most people already own PCs, and if you're a gamer, it should be comparing the cost to upgrade a computer to a gaming quality computer, and not the whole computer. So most people use laptops? Well, would anyone here really consider a laptop a gaming quality PC? They're more expensive and less powerful. They're not designed to play games despite what Alienware and Falcon Northwest would love you to believe. They just happen to be able to play games.

 

[wonderfield]

Almost everyone already has a keyboard and monitor, so nobody in their right mind would repurchase one unless they were already planning on upgrading.

Many users will also be able to procure a Windows license from the machine they're retiring.

 

[Flogger23m]

The point of his post was not that you needed to include a TV with the console, but that it's a stupid argument that consoles need only to take into account the console when PC users have to include the monitor, mouse, internet connection, electricity cost, mortgage/rent on the house you live in, car to get to work, etc. Almost everyone already has a keyboard and monitor, so nobody in their right mind would repurchase one unless they were already planning on upgrading.

I agree, consoles are initially cheaper than PCs. Consoles are typically sold as a loss leader for the software to pick up the discounted price. Whether or not you do that is up to the individual. The more console games you purchase, the more expensive the overall cost comes out to.

And I also agree that if you compare specs 1 to 1, consoles will typically win out in quality due to less hardware abstraction layers. That being said though, if you had a bleeding edge computer at the time of the console introduction, it will almost always be better and look better, even on games near the end of the consoles life line.

But as another person in a previous post stated, comparing PC costs to console costs is stupid. Most people already own PCs, and if you're a gamer, it should be comparing the cost to upgrade a computer to a gaming quality computer, and not the whole computer. So most people use laptops? Well, would anyone here really consider a laptop a gaming quality PC? They're more expensive and less powerful. They're not designed to play games despite what Alienware and Falcon Northwest would love you to believe. They just happen to be able to play games.

Most people do own PCs, but they are laptops. If people are using desktops, they're either physically smaller than the HD 7870 he linked to or won't be able to run one due to limitations of the PSU and probably the case size, ect. Point being, there is not much you're going to keep from a circa 2006-2008 desktop. Or do you still think the average person has bought a desktop from ~ 2010 or later? One that would even be upgraded to run halfway decent gaming hardware? If so, you're mistaken. The typical persons desktop will simply not be an easy, cheap upgrade. It will likely require an entirely new build.

Point being, most modern PCs (as in bought 3-4 years old) that people own are laptops. Upgrading is not a viable option for most.

The cost of games is a valid point; they cost more on console. For many people they will save money in the long run (for games) but after 5 years you will probably be forced to at least do one costly upgrade for the PC due to compatibility issues with older hardware. In which case, the savings are rather moot.

Another thing to note is a persons behavior. I know people who buy games day one on PC even though they realize it will be 50% off in two months. They simply can't wait, and for some reason, don't care about getting the same product for less during a sale. I can point out that the game is 50% off, they won't take interest, but will end up buying it at a later date for more money. You would be surprised how many people are either too lazy to wait for a sale or miss them. In such a case, this person would hardly save money on PC games over console games.

I am not saying consoles are better. The newest console I own is a PS2 and I don't have plans to get a PS4/Xbox whatever. I much prefer gaming desktops. But to say consoles are more expensive is just silly. They're cheaper, and rightfully so. You get less.

Many users will also be able to procure a Windows license from the machine they're retiring.

Good point, never thought of that. Though many OEM PCs don't come with the CD key, would the average person still have this option?

 

[Deleted member 88227]

So you are going to tell me a PC from 2006 will work just fine for current games right now in 2013? Does Crysis 3 run as good on your GTX 7900/ circa 2006 PC as it does on a PS3 with similar graphical quality and frame rates? I doubt it. There is more than raw performance to take into account. I doubt the latest games are using 7 year old hardware to its fullest potential as the driver/compatibility focus has shifted to current hardware and to 3-4 year old hardware.

As for console longevity, they last about just as long, save for the original 360s. Plenty of people are using their original PS3s and PS2s just fine.

Did you ignore my post?

Intel Pentium D 920, 2GB DDR, X1950XTX GPU... all hardware from 2006. Windows 7 installed. Currently* playing Battlefield Bad Company 2....



*On hold while I move.

 

[wonderfield]

Good point, never thought of that. Though many OEM PCs don't come with the CD key, would the average person still have this option?

No, but the average system builder will.

 

[Nytegard]

...

The point is not what most people own, but that it is possible to lessen the cost. People who buy laptops are most likely the Best Buy crowd, who buy the $150 HDMI Monster Cable.

One major issue I also have with these machine power arguments, and I'm not stating it was brought up here, but I see it way too often, is when people associate purchase date with how old the technology is.

I'm just trying to compare as best I can, apples to apples.

As far as cost goes, even brand new, PC games are on average $10 cheaper. Sure, that's changing due to the likes of Activision, but it hasn't changed completely.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Don't have to pay for XBL either.

 

[kashifme21]

So you are going to tell me a PC from 2006 will work just fine for current games right now in 2013? Does Crysis 3 run as good on your GTX 7900/ circa 2006 PC as it does on a PS3 with similar graphical quality and frame rates? I doubt it. There is more than raw performance to take into account. I doubt the latest games are using 7 year old hardware to its fullest potential as the driver/compatibility focus has shifted to current hardware and to 3-4 year old hardware.

As for console longevity, they last about just as long, save for the original 360s. Plenty of people are using their original PS3s and PS2s just fine.

Well a 2006 PC equipped with a 8800GTX will easily play most games of today in 1080p Med to high settings. Of course it wont run extreme options such as DOF, Tessellation however it will easily out do consoles.

As long as cost is concerned, remember every game bought on PC is 10-20usd cheaper this is at launch, if you consider Steam discounts the difference becomes even greater(since console versions dont drop in price as quick). Any hardcore gamer generally buys 2 games a month. So even if you count 20 games a year thats a difference of 200-400usd on games alone just in 1 year. Multiply that by 5 years and PC gamer can virtually upgrade the Rig on money saved on games and keep BC for all the games he bought to boot. Mean while its not like console gamer wont have to buy another console to get through the gen, you may need 2-3 consoles over a period of 5-7 years(yet are still stuck with the same old tech every time they rebuy). Regardless once the gen is over all those games you bought on console cant be played on the next machine.

Bottomline Consoles being cheap is console maker propaganda its what they would like people to believe. MS and Sony are the middle men in this going with middle men can never be cheaper. Watch the fireworks when people discover their old games physical or PSN dont work on the next consoles. No one likes to have to buy old consoles again and again just to maintain bc for the games they bought, neither do people like having multiple consoles hanging on one tv.