Want to build a PC on a budget? Meet the $500 gaming rig...

[Geo Da Sponge]

*Snip*

...

That's nice. At no point did I say anything about used games what-so-ever, so your post seems a little... pointless? Or have you got the wrong thread?

Also what industry are you looking at? I'm fairly sure that plenty of developers are focusing to console gaming because that's where the money is. Or rather, that's what everyone on this forum is complaining about (see Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 etc.).

 

[TiefBlau]

Still waaaay more expensive than a PS3 or Xbox. $500 is just far more than I can spend.

Is it? $300 more than a stock console, without games. While the multiplatform games are all $60 new, you can find a plethora of fun games for cheap, and I don't just mean flash based games either. For example F1 2010 is $20 on Steam right now. Black Ops is $45. Witcher 2 is $45 to preorder. First Witcher is only $10. There's 957 games under $10 on Steam, including games like Gothica, Magicka, Neverwinter Nights... I bought Assassin's Creed Brotherhood for my PS3, used, for $55 2 weeks ago. Saving anywhere from 10-40 dollars on games means in the long haul, you save.

"In the long haul" is nice and all, but not everyone can afford to pay $500 in one go on what is essentially a luxury.

Then perhaps they should save a little more. If you can't accumulate a couple hundred more by waiting a little while, you're probably materializing the video games you play on your console out of thin air, because console games ain't cheap, and if you buy only from Gamestop, you may as well pirate for all the good you do to the industry.

If you'd pay hundreds of dollars for a console, it's not exactly that big a jump to pay a couple hundred more for a PC. Especially not when a PC almost always gets games (even on release day) cheaper, doesn't pay for internet twice, and has, of all things, Steam.

It never ceases to amaze me how riled up people get over the simple concept: "PC gaming may be cheaper in the long run, but console gaming has a lower entry price". But of course you have to wrangle this truth, this one little detail so that you can still play it in your favour. Apparently being cheapest in the long run, something which is obviously better for anyone who can obtain it, isn't good enough any more. You have to intrude into areas which are clearly irrelevant to you, having got a decent gaming PC, and declare that the PC has dominion over those as well when it so obviously does not. Is PC gaming cheaper than people sometimes think? Yes. Is it cheaper in the long run? Probably, although that depends how you spend your money. Apparently the superiority granted to you by reality isn't sufficient to justify it to yourself.

Holy shit, don't piss your pants while you're at it. Were you just waiting for a response to your post so you could go off on your diatribe against aggressive PC fanbois or something? Project much?

I said "the long haul" isn't necessarily as hard a choice to go as you make it out to be, especially when deciding on buying something that costs hundreds of dollars. Does it anger you that someone contradicts your claims? Do you want to sit down and talk about it? Jesus Christ.

Used games = Legalized piracy.

You honestly did not just compare used game sales to piracy. Because if you did I'd have to call you woefully and painfully (for me reading it, at least) ignorant.

Then I'd have to slap you and tell you to go back to the kitchen and make me some manner of sandwich.

Fortunately you didn't do such an ignorant, silly thing. And we're all happier for it.

They contribute about as much (read: 0 dollars and 0 cents) to the industry, so yeah, they're comparable.

 

[Arachon]

I started gaming when I was an infant - some weird talking parrot thing on the PC that was DOS based.[...]

Starship Titanic perhaps?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Still waaaay more expensive than a PS3 or Xbox. $500 is just far more than I can spend.

Is it? $300 more than a stock console, without games. While the multiplatform games are all $60 new, you can find a plethora of fun games for cheap, and I don't just mean flash based games either. For example F1 2010 is $20 on Steam right now. Black Ops is $45. Witcher 2 is $45 to preorder. First Witcher is only $10. There's 957 games under $10 on Steam, including games like Gothica, Magicka, Neverwinter Nights... I bought Assassin's Creed Brotherhood for my PS3, used, for $55 2 weeks ago. Saving anywhere from 10-40 dollars on games means in the long haul, you save.

"In the long haul" is nice and all, but not everyone can afford to pay $500 in one go on what is essentially a luxury.

Then perhaps they should save a little more. If you can't accumulate a couple hundred more by waiting a little while, you're probably materializing the video games you play on your console out of thin air, because console games ain't cheap, and if you buy only from Gamestop, you may as well pirate for all the good you do to the industry.

If you'd pay hundreds of dollars for a console, it's not exactly that big a jump to pay a couple hundred more for a PC. Especially not when a PC almost always gets games (even on release day) cheaper, doesn't pay for internet twice, and has, of all things, Steam.

It never ceases to amaze me how riled up people get over the simple concept: "PC gaming may be cheaper in the long run, but console gaming has a lower entry price". But of course you have to wrangle this truth, this one little detail so that you can still play it in your favour. Apparently being cheapest in the long run, something which is obviously better for anyone who can obtain it, isn't good enough any more. You have to intrude into areas which are clearly irrelevant to you, having got a decent gaming PC, and declare that the PC has dominion over those as well when it so obviously does not. Is PC gaming cheaper than people sometimes think? Yes. Is it cheaper in the long run? Probably, although that depends how you spend your money. Apparently the superiority granted to you by reality isn't sufficient to justify it to yourself.

Holy shit, don't piss your pants while you're at it. Were you just waiting for a response to your post so you could go off on your diatribe against aggressive PC fanbois or something? Project much?

I said "the long haul" isn't necessarily as hard a choice to go as you make it out to be, especially when deciding on buying something that costs hundreds of dollars. Does it anger you that someone contradicts your claims? Do you want to sit down and talk about it? Jesus Christ.

Yes. I was all hunched over the keyboard in a mad aggressive rage, by face contorted into a painful grimace as my left eye twitched from the sheer unbridled rage that I was projecting down onto the screen. I was hoping that the unstoppable, unrelenting force of my anger would purge your unclean and deviant mind from this planet.

Well not really. Actually I don't really care much, and I wouldn't written a response nearly as long if it hadn't come to mind so easily, although maybe I should have thought for a second about that. So I typed it all up and then posted it without thinking twice. Then I went to Subway and had a BMT.

It was nice.

*Snip*

...

That's nice. At no point did I say anything about used games what-so-ever, so your post seems a little... pointless? Or have you got the wrong thread?

Also what industry are you looking at? I'm fairly sure that plenty of developers are focusing to console gaming because that's where the money is. Or rather, that's what everyone on this forum is complaining about (see Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 etc.).

http://n-europe.com/news.php?nid=14508
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/05/metro-2033-has-been-very-profitable-for-thq-ceo-says/
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/06/22/activision-70-percent-income-comes-non-console-games
http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-live-arcade-not-profitable/
http://www.gamesradar.com/wii/wii/news/thq-says-ps3-is-least-profitable-for-its-business-wii-eats-everything-else-up/a-2010110416566708074/g-20060308165433320026
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/4226/thq-studio-dev-costs-biggest-industry-issue
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/294333/news/insomniacs-console-concerns-only-triple-a-games-are-profitable/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-08-31-console-market-not-supporting-full-range-of-products-says-ubisoft
http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/02/07/bioshock-creator-no-new-consoles-please/
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news-1981-Hot-Topic---Is-the-Triple-A-Game-Business-Model-on-its-Last-Legs-.html

Look at these links. I have much more but can't be arsed to look them up. In short, unless your a big dog with a reputation you can exploit then you wont get far in the console market. The point is that retail games are 60$, and the loss leader method of lowering prices over time doesn't always happen. Look at heavenly sword, a PS3 exclusive, and its still 60$ due to no profits. The only sure-fire way for lower prices for games are used game stores.

Okay, let's go through those links in order:
N-Europe: THQ says Wii is more profitable than oother consoles. Nothing about profitability of consoles vs. PC.
Joystiq: Metro 2033 was more profitable on PC than console. I'll give you that one, but it's hardly surprising given how Metro was a successor of sorts to S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Game Politics: Activision makes more money off PC than console. Well yes, but that's because they own World of Warcraft.
Lazy Gamer: People complain about XBLA, but their complaints seem to be specific to XBLA rather than consoles in general. And in fact the complaints are coming from the larger XBLA games (Shadow Complex and Super Meat Boy being pretty big).
Games Radar: THQ makes more money off Wii than PS3, same as first link.
Now Gamer: Dev costs are up; that seems just as true of PC games.
Computer and Video Games: Only AAA games are profitable. Well that's who we're talking about, isn't it?
Games Industry: Couldn't read the article, don't have an account.
Playstation Life Style: "No new consoles please" good thing there's no sign of them releasing any more soon, eh?
Xbox 360 Achievements: Article seems to be focused on AAA games in general rather than specifically for consoles, although naturally it's viewed from that angle given the source of the article.

So yes, it's easier for small developers on the PC. But I was never talking about small developers, I was talking about big developers, ie. pretty much the only people selling full priced games on the 360 and PS3 anyway. And Heavenly Sword was $25 most of the places I looked online, not that it's possible to get consistent results given the age of the game. In fact the games being sold at high prices, at least on amazon, are things like Modern Warfare which can rely on people buying it no matter what.

 

[MercurySteam]

It's good to see ATI/AMD spearheading the charge for effective but cheap PC gaming.

 

[Sebenko]

Show me a cheap laptop with the same specs and then I'll be interested. Seriously, the mobility of a laptop in my gaming platform is what I'm looking for, and something that no console can match.

I travel, and to play my games as I do, I'd rather not lug around a TV.

I'm afraid you're shit out of luck there. I'm using a Samsung R780 at the moment for uni, and it's pretty good for the games I play, and cost me around £600. Anything better just gets ludicrous.

I had a friend whose laptop included dual GTX280s, it was almost £2000. Mental.

 

[Discon]

Still waaaay more expensive than a PS3 or Xbox. $500 is just far more than I can spend.

Is it? $300 more than a stock console, without games. While the multiplatform games are all $60 new, you can find a plethora of fun games for cheap, and I don't just mean flash based games either. For example F1 2010 is $20 on Steam right now. Black Ops is $45. Witcher 2 is $45 to preorder. First Witcher is only $10. There's 957 games under $10 on Steam, including games like Gothica, Magicka, Neverwinter Nights... I bought Assassin's Creed Brotherhood for my PS3, used, for $55 2 weeks ago. Saving anywhere from 10-40 dollars on games means in the long haul, you save.

"In the long haul" is nice and all, but not everyone can afford to pay $500 in one go on what is essentially a luxury.

Think about it. If you buy an new Xbox an 2-3 new games there is your $500. It is not a luxury either as everyone needs a computer, you would just have a better model.

A new Xbox 360 is currently listed as $200 on amazon, giving you five brand new games (and trust me, no console gamer buys all their games at $60, not least of all because you can almost always get cheaper than that at launch). Now if you had bought a 360 when it was first released it cost $400, which would make your 2-3 games for $500 estimate accurate, but then you'd be getting at least five years of entertainment out of it before the next console generation even starts. And while a PC is not a luxury on it's own, a good one that's built to play games is. I can also promise that with a PC you will spend more money on games you never play (assuming you have Steam).

I say all this as someone who does all their gaming on a PC now. You can't have everything.

I honestly have NEVER seen a single game cheaper than the regular price at launch, the only exceptions are pre-order discounts, and I don't pre-order games anymore. In fact, here in Norway, most games cost their full price several months after. I remember seeing Bioshock 1, one and a half years after its launch, being sold at full price.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Still waaaay more expensive than a PS3 or Xbox. $500 is just far more than I can spend.

Is it? $300 more than a stock console, without games. While the multiplatform games are all $60 new, you can find a plethora of fun games for cheap, and I don't just mean flash based games either. For example F1 2010 is $20 on Steam right now. Black Ops is $45. Witcher 2 is $45 to preorder. First Witcher is only $10. There's 957 games under $10 on Steam, including games like Gothica, Magicka, Neverwinter Nights... I bought Assassin's Creed Brotherhood for my PS3, used, for $55 2 weeks ago. Saving anywhere from 10-40 dollars on games means in the long haul, you save.

"In the long haul" is nice and all, but not everyone can afford to pay $500 in one go on what is essentially a luxury.

Think about it. If you buy an new Xbox an 2-3 new games there is your $500. It is not a luxury either as everyone needs a computer, you would just have a better model.

A new Xbox 360 is currently listed as $200 on amazon, giving you five brand new games (and trust me, no console gamer buys all their games at $60, not least of all because you can almost always get cheaper than that at launch). Now if you had bought a 360 when it was first released it cost $400, which would make your 2-3 games for $500 estimate accurate, but then you'd be getting at least five years of entertainment out of it before the next console generation even starts. And while a PC is not a luxury on it's own, a good one that's built to play games is. I can also promise that with a PC you will spend more money on games you never play (assuming you have Steam).

I say all this as someone who does all their gaming on a PC now. You can't have everything.

I honestly have NEVER seen a single game cheaper than the regular price at launch, the only exceptions are pre-order discounts, and I don't pre-order games anymore. In fact, here in Norway, most games cost their full price several months after. I remember seeing Bioshock 1, one and a half years after its launch, being sold at full price.

Hmm. I guess I was just lucky then.

 

[Valkyira]

I'm actually looking to buy a gaming pc that can play games like Crysis and Crysis 2 on the best settings or damn close to the best settings, but I'm a complete novice when it comes to pc's and I don't have a fucking clue what to buy. I'm looking to buy a decent one near around the £500 mark and I know it's probably a bit optimistic to find one for that price tag but could anyone help me out?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

It never ceases to amaze me how riled up people get over the simple concept: "PC gaming may be cheaper in the long run, but console gaming has a lower entry price". But of course you have to wrangle this truth, this one little detail so that you can still play it in your favour. Apparently being cheapest in the long run, something which is obviously better for anyone who can obtain it, isn't good enough any more. You have to intrude into areas which are clearly irrelevant to you, having got a decent gaming PC, and declare that the PC has dominion over those as well when it so obviously does not. Is PC gaming cheaper than people sometimes think? Yes. Is it cheaper in the long run? Probably, although that depends how you spend your money. Apparently the superiority granted to you by reality isn't sufficient to justify it to yourself.

Seriously... it's really really cheap... for instance these are my latest Steam transactions:

*image snip*

Also you're forgetting that there are a bunch of Mods and Free2Play games on the PC (good ones mind you, not shitty ones) like League of Legends etc.

Here's a guy listing ~1600+ Free games (and not Flash-games either): http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244468

You're preaching to the converted, you know?

 

[ZombieGenesis]

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 925 $125
CPU Cooler: AMD boxed heatsink/fan $0
Motherboard: ASRock M3A770DE $60

I like the point this thread is making but personally I'd go Intel and I NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER would buy an ASRock Motherboard ever, ever again. I literally broke one in two pieces and threw it away a few years ago... the price isn't worth the hassle.

Atm I got an i7-950, ASUS Sabertooth X58 and a 460GTX but that's in a slightly higher price range

Unless you do graphics design, I have to ask why you have an i7 950 (!) paired with a 460 o_o That's an insane processor, but the graphics card is about the median for what I'd call a genuine gamers PC.
Nothing wrong with it of course, I just can't help but be curious :3

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Show me a cheap laptop with the same specs and then I'll be interested. Seriously, the mobility of a laptop in my gaming platform is what I'm looking for, and something that no console can match.

Check eBay and the like, there are hundreds of "shop spoiled" laptops that are supercheap.

DELL D620 LAPTOP CORE DUO 1.66GHZ 1GB 80GB WIFI XP [http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FAST-DELL-D620-LAPTOP-CORE-DUO-1-66GHZ-1GB-80GB-WIFI-XP-/280632489297?pt=UK_Computing_Laptops_EH&hash=item4156fff551]: £180. ($290)

First try. There maybe far better.

 

[RobCoxxy]

I built my PC for £500. And when the PS3 came out here it was £425. The Xbox was £210.

Not that much more expensive than a PS3 and the games are a LOT cheaper.