The whole "PCs aren't that expensive compared to consoles" argument

[Paradoxical]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

-more snip-

Gimme a link to prove a price, and I will start boiling them : )

I can give you two links where my PC is running Creed 2 at completely maxed graphics, where although the framerate is stuttery it's still playable and I have one where Ezio is rowing a gondola in Veneziaat my normal play settings.

As for how much this costed? I wouldn't have a clue, it was put together by Dad about 5 years ago, so I wouldn't know where to get any of the pricing info.

Max graphics 1: http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy114/randomtrezon/EzioinVenezia1.jpg
Max graphics 2: http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy114/randomtrezon/EzioinVenezia2.jpg
Settings I play on: http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy114/randomtrezon/EzioinVenezia3.jpg

If you have any doubts as to whether those pictures are mine or not? I can provide more information in screenshots (Villa's current money and earnings, feathers collected, things like that). The equipment in these screenshots is the Misaglias armor set dyed Florentine Crimson, the Condottiero Warhammer, the Notched Cinquedea and the Metal Cestus.

 

[Treblaine]

PC doesn't have Gears of War (besides the first one, but it doesn't work as well on PC as the Xbox 360), Final Fantasy, Uncharted, Zelda, or many, many more games: likewise, many games (mostly RTS) are only available on PC. It depends on the games you want, and as long as I call myself a hardcore gamer, I'll try to have them all so I can play all genres and classic games.

Platform elitism is... well, it's just not smart.

Zelda and Uncharted are 1st party titles, they are ONLY going to come out on Sony or Nintendo machines so that rules out PC not because it is better or worse but because it is not their platform.

And I'm not so elitist about platforms, I just have high standards:

if consoles could offer:
-Mouse/keyboard/joystick controls, fully customisable with macros
-fully editable and modable game files
-high resolution (1080p+), high framerate (60fps+) and high AA, with Vsync for almost all titles
-no restrictions on installing third party programs and applications
-user run features like dedicated servers

Then yeah... I'd be fine with just a console that could do all that.

And as it is I am not fine with just a PC, since 1st party game like Uncharted and Zelda only come out on consoles. And some developers, especially Japanese developers, seem to prefer making their game dedicated for a single console platform (MGS series is best example) and seems to go against their ethos to port or co-develop titles.

Consoles like PS3 have advantages in other areas that PC doesn't:
-cheap/convenient blu-ray/DVD-upscaler
-handy DVR/PVR device with the PlayTV/Torne adaptor
-download movie rental service (UK hasn't got Netflix or equivalent)
-split screen for some casual gaming with non-gamer friends.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

PC gamers, why do you call it a "rig"

It comes from a variant of Trucker/CB speak + attractive female + jury-rig + a scam.

Similar to how guitars are axes.

And you CAN play Sony/Nintendo titles on a PC...as long as you have the original ROMs.

 

[Paradoxical]

2.7 GHz just isn't good enough. Damn close, but it is kinda important to meet what a game recommends to play it well.

I was running fine on a 2.21 GHz Processor on my newer (but not-so-much set up for gaming as my parents tend to use it a lot) PC, so 2.7GHz is more than enough, although this PC does have a 2.81GHz CPU...

Well I don't know about most people, but I call it a rig because my PC is about the same size and weight as an eighteen-wheeler. Lol.

This^

Eigteen-wheeler PCs own!

 

[Thwarted]

Im a PC gamer and id buy a console tomorrow IF THEY TOOK MOUSE AND KEYS!!!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People often try and assert that the price difference in games and whatnot makes up for the expense but they are mistaken. My current rig cost (including shipping) about $1150 USD. It replaced a system no longer viable for an upgrade that I built four years prior that cost about $1500 USD. In that intervening period, I purchased two additional video cards at about $200 USD each. In this same period, I purchased a 360 (At about $400 USD) and a PS3 (again, about $400 USD) and a total of about 50 games averaging around $50 - $60 USD. The difference to me is quite clear, and I only continue to do it because I enjoy games that have thus far only been proven to work well on a PC.

 

[jamesworkshop]

People often try and assert that the price difference in games and whatnot makes up for the expense but they are mistaken. My current rig cost (including shipping) about $1150 USD. It replaced a system no longer viable for an upgrade that I built four years prior that cost about $1500 USD. In that intervening period, I purchased two additional video cards at about $200 USD each. In this same period, I purchased a 360 (At about $400 USD) and a PS3 (again, about $400 USD) and a total of about 50 games averaging around $50 - $60 USD. The difference to me is quite clear, and I only continue to do it because I enjoy games that have thus far only been proven to work well on a PC.

O.O there's no way in hell you're serious, this doesn't fall under computer illiterate, this falls under you got massively ripped off.

I agree.

The only upgrade I've made to the computer I built in 2006 was switching from a 7900GTX to a 9800GTX back in 2008 which i'm still using today.
In terms of beating a console you only need to run 1280x1024 a res that doesn't require the latest most expensive hardware, to even the lowest end cards 720p is a joke.

But thats the nature of PC you have to know what you are doing.

 

[Thaius]

PC doesn't have Gears of War (besides the first one, but it doesn't work as well on PC as the Xbox 360), Final Fantasy, Uncharted, Zelda, or many, many more games: likewise, many games (mostly RTS) are only available on PC. It depends on the games you want, and as long as I call myself a hardcore gamer, I'll try to have them all so I can play all genres and classic games.

Platform elitism is... well, it's just not smart.

Zelda and Uncharted are 1st party titles, they are ONLY going to come out on Sony or Nintendo machines so that rules out PC not because it is better or worse but because it is not their platform.

Thank you for emphasizing my point.

All I'm saying is that, for me, games factor in more than most things. The exclusivity of Uncharted and Zelda, as well as plenty of Xbox 360 games, mean that all consoles have value regardless of things like control schemes, processing power, and customization. The presence of said exclusives does not mean anything is better than another, but demonstrates that all platforms have value. Platforms may stand for one thing or another that we may or may not like (the Wii tends to be more casual, the PS3 is all power no substance, Xbox Live has stupid 13-year olds, etc.), but exclusives ensure that no platform is genuinely better than another.

In other words, you emphasized my point. Thanks!

 

[Treblaine]

Zelda and Uncharted are 1st party titles, they are ONLY going to come out on Sony or Nintendo machines so that rules out PC not because it is better or worse but because it is not their platform.

Thank you for emphasizing my point.

All I'm saying is that, for me, games factor in more than most things. The exclusivity of Uncharted and Zelda, as well as plenty of Xbox 360 games, mean that all consoles have value regardless of things like control schemes, processing power, and customization. The presence of said exclusives does not mean anything is better than another, but demonstrates that all platforms have value. Platforms may stand for one thing or another that we may or may not like (the Wii tends to be more casual, the PS3 is all power no substance, Xbox Live has stupid 13-year olds, etc.), but exclusives ensure that no platform is genuinely better than another.

In other words, you emphasized my point. Thanks!

Well one thing I was going to add about 1st party titles is while more often than not they are some of the best games worth getting in any given generation (completely unsupported statement, but I think you can agree considering Zelda/uncharted). But the problem with 1st party titles is just how few of them there are.

Lets just look at 2007, Microsoft had Crackdown and Halo 3... and that's about it. Sony had Motorstorm, Resistance FOM and Uncharted 1 (plus a few others of not universal acclaim). So that's only 5 games across two consoles for a whole 12 month period, and 2008 and 2009 are much the same. This just isn't giving enough bang for my buck as far as I'm concerned. See one publisher (Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo) can only make to many games per year, especially with development times getting longer and more expensive.



The real win is with third party games (that I find all are best on PC).

Take just 2007:
-Bioshock
-Call of Duty 4
-Crysis
-Orange Box
-Stalker
-Supreme commander
-Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
-Unreal Tournament 3
-Command and Conquer 3
-Tomb Raider Anniversary
-DiRT

See as great as quality 1st party titles can be, they have got stiff competition from the open market of third party games that also have the advantage og going for almost any platform they want. And when it comes to third party, PC is strong with those. COD4 on PC got dedicated severs while PS3 and 360 didn't and they're still going strong to this day.

That's why consoles will always play second fiddle to PC in my books, considering how even two of the top "hardcore" consoles taken together struggle to offer a line-up to compete with what I want to get on PC and the amount of time and enjoyment I get from my PC games.

[small](Oh yeah, I know it sounds like I've been leaving the Wii out but I managed to get Twilight Princess on Gamecube rather than wii, I'll be getting a Wii when (a) it gets a price cut reflective of its comparative power and (b) the new Zelda comes out. Though I am tempted to skip the Wii all together, the next Nintendo console will likely be backwards compatible and I could play the upcoming Zelda game on that.)[/small]

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People often try and assert that the price difference in games and whatnot makes up for the expense but they are mistaken. My current rig cost (including shipping) about $1150 USD. It replaced a system no longer viable for an upgrade that I built four years prior that cost about $1500 USD. In that intervening period, I purchased two additional video cards at about $200 USD each. In this same period, I purchased a 360 (At about $400 USD) and a PS3 (again, about $400 USD) and a total of about 50 games averaging around $50 - $60 USD. The difference to me is quite clear, and I only continue to do it because I enjoy games that have thus far only been proven to work well on a PC.

O.O there's no way in hell you're serious, this doesn't fall under computer illiterate, this falls under you got massively ripped off.

I agree.

The only upgrade I've made to the computer I built in 2006 was switching from a 7900GTX to a 9800GTX back in 2008 which i'm still using today.
In terms of beating a console you only need to run 1280x1024 a res that doesn't require the latest most expensive hardware, to even the lowest end cards 720p is a joke.

But thats the nature of PC you have to know what you are doing.

not even that, buying a bad ass PC prebuilt for 1K wouldn't make it unupgradable after 4 years, especially not when you bought graphics cards 2 years apart. 3K would keep me in fairly decent hardware for a long while (over 2 decades if I don't have to completely rebuild after one) it should keep even the computer illiterate in decent hardware for a decade (upgrade every five years with an overpriced 1500 PC meaning 2 PCs over 10 years) there's simply no way in hell he spent that much in 4 without knowing what he's doing (a.k.a. being a crazy modder/over clocker)............I'm gonna stop bitching now

It was not "pre built" for 1k - I built it myself. A system of similar specification from a major vendor (such as Alienware) would have cost significantly more. The trouble was, I needed a faster processor, but in order to achieve this I required a new motherboard. Since my video card was a bit long in the tooth, I purchased a new one of those as well. With a new motherboard, I saw no reason not to use faster memory as well. And, since I was replacing all the other components already, I also sprang for a new pair of hard drives and replaced my 19" monitor with a 23". The only part that was carried over in the end was my case and my keyboard and mouse.

My previous system certainly still RAN modern games, but I prefer being able to play any game at maximum settings without hitch or lag. If it weren't for such sillyness, I could have used my previous system for another year or more. This is the trouble - if one wants to play games under the "optimal" conditions, all it requires on a console is possession of the device and periphrials. With a PC, hardware advances are a harsh mistress. It is true - many do not pursue such paths but even if we ignore my recent upgrade and even the two additional video cards the price difference is dramatic ($1100 USD for the 360 for example). Even having paid for four years of Live (which amounts to $200 USD) I would have had to purchase several hundred games before the price offset actually made PC gaming cheaper than console and there simply wasn't anywhere close to that number of games I wanted to play. Regardless of if you agree with what I spent my money on or what my standards are, even over the very long term with much lower standards, console gaming is significantly cheaper than PC. The price difference might not always be as absurd as it is in my case of course.

There are certainly ways where one can get around this. For example, if one always plays games several years after they are released on PC, the hardware can be acquired at rock bottom prices. Even a bottom of the line PC can play a 5 year old game without issue. If your standard is to play games as they are released without compromising fidelity for performance however, the scale rapidly begins to tip.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

PC gamers, why do you call it a "rig"

Console gamings a care free life: I'm tech savi enough to do basic upgrades on a PC, but I know I;d get annoyed with trying to keep an eye on being up to spec for a game I really wanted

Well I don't know about most people, but I call it a rig because my PC is about the same size and weight as an eighteen-wheeler. Lol.

*Drum roll, snare*

I have played some older titles on my pc (Outcast, Soul Reaver 1&2) and I by no means think pc gaming is a bad medium, just something that requires patience and/or know how to keep up with newer games. Plus I'm running Ubuntu at the moments, most games are for Windows and WINE can be temperamental

 

[Jazzyluv2]

first off, that build is the build of someone who just wants a nice computer now. Second off for a computer that does more than fine on ultra high settings for 500 bucks

50 bucks on 2 gigs of ram(on xp more for vista or 7)

70 buck mobo

a 50 buck hardrive

a decent graphics card 100-150

80 buck amd phenom 2 x4

a cheapo case 10-20 bucks

get a 6 dollar keyboard

a 10 dollar mouse

a 20 buck cd/dvd


50+70+125+80+15+6+10+20

there is your computer that can run 95 percent of games for an average of 376-411 on a computer.

and i know you guys got XP or some kinda windows shit, just put it on the computer

Oh yeah, and this is better than Any game console out there in terms of performance

 

[Thaius]

Zelda and Uncharted are 1st party titles, they are ONLY going to come out on Sony or Nintendo machines so that rules out PC not because it is better or worse but because it is not their platform.

Thank you for emphasizing my point.

All I'm saying is that, for me, games factor in more than most things. The exclusivity of Uncharted and Zelda, as well as plenty of Xbox 360 games, mean that all consoles have value regardless of things like control schemes, processing power, and customization. The presence of said exclusives does not mean anything is better than another, but demonstrates that all platforms have value. Platforms may stand for one thing or another that we may or may not like (the Wii tends to be more casual, the PS3 is all power no substance, Xbox Live has stupid 13-year olds, etc.), but exclusives ensure that no platform is genuinely better than another.

In other words, you emphasized my point. Thanks!

Well one thing I was going to add about 1st party titles is while more often than not they are some of the best games worth getting in any given generation (completely unsupported statement, but I think you can agree considering Zelda/uncharted). But the problem with 1st party titles is just how few of them there are.

Lets just look at 2007, Microsoft had Crackdown and Halo 3... and that's about it. Sony had Motorstorm, Resistance FOM and Uncharted 1 (plus a few others of not universal acclaim). So that's only 5 games across two consoles for a whole 12 month period, and 2008 and 2009 are much the same. This just isn't giving enough bang for my buck as far as I'm concerned. See one publisher (Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo) can only make to many games per year, especially with development times getting longer and more expensive.



The real win is with third party games (that I find all are best on PC).

Take just 2007:
-Bioshock
-Call of Duty 4
-Crysis
-Orange Box
-Stalker
-Supreme commander
-Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
-Unreal Tournament 3
-Command and Conquer 3
-Tomb Raider Anniversary
-DiRT

See as great as quality 1st party titles can be, they have got stiff competition from the open market of third party games that also have the advantage og going for almost any platform they want. And when it comes to third party, PC is strong with those. COD4 on PC got dedicated severs while PS3 and 360 didn't and they're still going strong to this day.

That's why consoles will always play second fiddle to PC in my books, considering how even two of the top "hardcore" consoles taken together struggle to offer a line-up to compete with what I want to get on PC and the amount of time and enjoyment I get from my PC games.

[small](Oh yeah, I know it sounds like I've been leaving the Wii out but I managed to get Twilight Princess on Gamecube rather than wii, I'll be getting a Wii when (a) it gets a price cut reflective of its comparative power and (b) the new Zelda comes out. Though I am tempted to skip the Wii all together, the next Nintendo console will likely be backwards compatible and I could play the upcoming Zelda game on that.)[/small]

Though very few of the third-party titles you mentioned are PC exclusive. This isn't so much a matter of 1st party titles as exclusive ones. Every system has a good amount of exclusives worth owning: almost all of the games you listed are available on consoles as well as the PC. Point being, I could enjoy those on my 360 as well, thus meaning they do not give an advantage to the PC in the slightest. Again, all evens out based on exclusive games.

 

[Sebenko]

Though very few of the third-party titles you mentioned are PC exclusive. This isn't so much a matter of 1st party titles as exclusive ones. Every system has a good amount of exclusives worth owning: almost all of the games you listed are available on consoles as well as the PC. Point being, I could enjoy those on my 360 as well, thus meaning they do not give an advantage to the PC in the slightest. Again, all evens out based on exclusive games.

You want to play Sup Com on a console? Claiming that the two versions of that are equal is a pretty bad idea. And C&C3. RTS= PC version > Console version
Crysis is a PC exclusive, as is STALKER. And STALKER is goddamn awesome.
And you only get updates for the Orange Box on PC.

"Exclusive" is a bullshit term.

 

[Thaius]

Though very few of the third-party titles you mentioned are PC exclusive. This isn't so much a matter of 1st party titles as exclusive ones. Every system has a good amount of exclusives worth owning: almost all of the games you listed are available on consoles as well as the PC. Point being, I could enjoy those on my 360 as well, thus meaning they do not give an advantage to the PC in the slightest. Again, all evens out based on exclusive games.

You want to play Sup Com on a console? Claiming that the two versions of that are equal is a pretty bad idea. And C&C3. RTS= PC version > Console version
Crysis is a PC exclusive, as is STALKER. And STALKER is goddamn awesome.
And you only get updates for the Orange Box on PC.

"Exclusive" is a bullshit term.

Obviously a PC version of an RTS will be superior to a console version: that genre is the only one I will give exclusively to PC, since it simply doesn't work well on a console.

Besides that, you named off some great PC exclusives. I could name off tons of great console exclusives. You act like I'm attacking your system of choice, when really all I'm saying is that, based on exclusive games, each one is a valid option for different reasons.

And I fail to see the lack of validity in the term "exclusive." Especially since you used it two lines before you said that.

 

[NLS]

What I like about computer gaming and such, is that you can individually upgrade parts every now and then, you don't need to rebuy the whole thing new whenever you feel like you're lagging behind.
For instance, my mouse, keyboard, headset, screen, hard drives and chassis don't need to be bought new again if I'm just getting a new motherboard.