Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

PC Gaming, too expensive!!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 12, 2007 4:46:09 AM

PC gaming used to be the affordable, inovative, superior gaming solution! But over the years it has become expensive, and tough to maintain. For example, 6 months after people bought 8800 gts's they became obsolete! Why is this? :heink:  Why is it that new technology must come out for PC's every 6 months and Game consoles last about 4 years? I ask myself this all the time! That and the other question which is, WHY IS PC GAMING SO EXPENSIVE?? Just a good graphics card cost about $500! You can get a PS3 for that price with graphics that are just as good! So why is it so expensive?? :fou:  Can anyone answer me these questions?

I almost want to switch to console gaming, but i cant stand controllers, must have a mouse and keyboard! :pfff: 

More about : gaming expensive

November 12, 2007 5:38:08 AM

First off, you cant compare the price of PC gaming to the price of console gaming. Two different worlds.

If your looking to rant, fine, but if you put some thought into what a pc can do compared to a console, you would see the value of a PC and the value of a console. Then you would realize that each one is good for what they are and thats the end of it.

Apples and Oranged my friend.

BTW: My $200 videocard play GoW and COD4 in 1080p...

Edit: Your questions about the 6 months vs 4 years thing. Look at it this way. an 8800gt will play all the latest games for a couple of years before its time is due. Even after that game are still playable with the same card.

My friend is still going strong with his 9800pro. I chose to upgrade while he doest now...

PS: I own both a PS3 and a 360. Thanks


November 12, 2007 5:49:33 AM

the yeti said:
For example, 6 months after people bought 8800 gts's they became obsolete!

8800GTS Obsolete? :heink: 
Related resources
November 12, 2007 6:23:25 AM

Then buy console.

PC game developers have a tendency to push graphics to the limit. If you want to blame someone then blame them.

As for ATI/nVidia they are always trying to out do each other. They just don't say, "Okay people, we just developed the GPU possible, let's slack off for the next year or two."

November 12, 2007 6:39:12 AM

I have to admit that I kind of have the same emotional response as the opening poster, feeling that is getting more and more expensive.

However, if I benchmark it against my past history I have to come to a different conclusion.

I buy a new system every 3 years (tax deductability reasons), spending approximately $2000 (usually a bit more) for a very decent rig, and then I stretch gaming usage for the systems to 3 years lifetime before shoving it down the family pipeline (we only have 2 desktops in the family at the moment so that still works). In the last year I cannot play the games like I want to play them (usually graphics intensive shooters). It is not different this time, than it has been before so I have to admit it is business as usual, although my emotional response is different.

So the really interesting question for me is, why do I feel like I'm being ripped off then?
November 12, 2007 9:24:14 AM

If all you want to do is play games, buy a console.

But PCs do a whole lot more than games. So to my mind, a better question might be somehting like "Since I have to have a PC to do {x,y,z,p,d,q} anyhow, is it worth my cash to have one that games effectively too? Or is it better to have a PC and a Console and have to upgrade *both* every couple years."
November 12, 2007 12:44:27 PM

Get a console! PCs can do internet, music, msn, media, EVERYTHING
November 12, 2007 1:37:56 PM

Scotteq said:
If all you want to do is play games, buy a console.
[/i]

Exactly!


the yeti said:
For example, 6 months after people bought 8800 gts's they became obsolete! Why is this? :heink:  Why is it that new technology must come out for PC's every 6 months and Game consoles last about 4 years? I ask myself this all the time! That and the other question which is, WHY IS PC GAMING SO EXPENSIVE?? Just a good graphics card cost about $500!


8800's have been out a whole year.

And before the PS3 came out, did PC graphics not destroy PS2 graphics....YES! Just as PC graphics are already superior to current consoles...imagine 4 years from now how much better PC graphics will be compared to
the current consoles that will still be chugging along on their antiquated GPU's.

A good card costs $200-250, the best cards cost $500+.

How often do you buy a new PC? Every 2-4 years...the same as the "consoles". So, invest that console money into the cost of your well researched, home-built PC and it's not really that expensive.

If you're a moron with a 4 year old Dell who's only played consoles and hears about Crysis (or some other PC only game) and wants to play it...yeah, you're going to have to shell out 2x the $$$ what a current console costs.
November 12, 2007 1:57:49 PM

You know what I started writing a big long winded write up of why PC’s are not so bad considering what a Console offers. But I would have just as much effect writing this. “The PC is not that bad considering”.
November 12, 2007 2:13:54 PM

I wouldn't say PC gaming has become more expensive because it's always been expensive to keep a PC powerful enough for gaming, so that's nothing new.
I can see that consoles have come a long way since the early days and can do so much more now. Every game developed for the PS3 or Xbox 360 is optimised to run on the hardware and to be honest the quality of the graphics look just as good presently, but a Consoles costs a fraction of the price. Add to the fact that many games are now avaliable for PC and console. I will stick to PC gaming for now, but one day I can see myself switching :) 
November 12, 2007 2:46:32 PM

I'm almost 90% sure that a $600 PC is technologically superior to a $600 PS3.

The cell processer is Sony's way of saying "Here at Sony we do everything the long way!"
November 12, 2007 3:24:44 PM

"Obsolete" is a powerful word. I bought a GTS 320 about 5 months ago and I don't feel it's obsolete at all. I'm still very happy with the purchase.

The Crysis demo ran fine at 1680x1050; I did have to dial down some settings of course. But the look of the game was no problem at all. And that's what I'm using to judge my GPU.
November 12, 2007 3:38:45 PM

Can Not said:
The cell processer is Sony's way of saying "Here at Sony we do everything the long way!"


ROFL! I'm not entirely sure if that's true, but it's funny as hell. Sony does have a propensity though of saying "Here at Sony we make everyone else do everything the long way!"

To the OP, you say an 8800GTS is obsolete 6 months out?

.....................................
WHAT?! It's not obsolete. It's as powerful as the day it came out. It still plays games well. The fact that something comes out that plays games BETTER does not mean that what it supplanted plays games worse. A system equipped with a Q6600, an 8800GTS, and 2GB of RAM is superior to a PS3.

Two things:
1) A console's hardware does not change for 5 years. This is efficient to the manufacturer. This allows the gamer to spend X amount of money every 5 years. I will not contest that Resistance: Fall of Man possibly looked as good as Prey, or even Oblivion. Back when the PS2 was released, something like MGS2 looked fantastic. GTA3 looked good. Even MGS3 looked good.

2) Here's my big point now though. Did MGS3 look as good as Half-Life 2 or Doom3 or Chronicles of Riddick? The PC versions by the way. It looked good, but not that good. You give me any PS2 game from 2005 and FEAR will rip it a new one visually, physics-wise, audio-wise. Give me any 2006 PS2 game and Prey, Oblivion, and army of other PC games will destroy them technologically.

The PS3, like the PS2, was hell to program for. Therefore games kept looking better for PS2 because devs kept learning how to program for it. Same will happen for PS3. Xbox visuals flatlined around 2003-04 because it was a PC. People knew how to design for it. There wasn't much more they could push out of it.

The biggest piece of useful knowledge here is that you can build your $1000 PC with a Q6600 and a GTS and 2GB of ram, and it'll give you the same consistent visual level for 3 years. After 3 to 4 years, it likely will start to be unable to play brand new AAA titles. But until then, you can keep turning down another setting year to year to make each new title look only as good as those from when you built the machine. Either way, if you go console or PC, you're limiting yourself to a certain year's visuals and hopefully you get good gameplay instead. Also, you can make lame posts on forums using your PC. Or you can search for pr0n, or new PC parts to keep your machine updated. Can't do all that on consoles.
November 12, 2007 3:40:42 PM

Really? I bought a 7600GT 10 months ago and I haven't had a single regret either! But I sometimes think I should have gotten a X1650GT instead.
November 12, 2007 3:49:13 PM

cpburns said:
ROFL! I'm not entirely sure if that's true, but it's funny as hell.


I'm going to start out with logic. At the time Intel's quad core was $1,500, would you honestly believe that a $600 game console (costs Sony less than $900 to make) will actually have an 8 core processor clocked at 3.2GHz and be as powerful as it sounds?

November 12, 2007 4:05:06 PM

Can Not, I was agreeing with you, by the way.
November 12, 2007 6:13:26 PM

Ok first off, im not an idiot, i have studied pc's for 3 years now, i keep myself updated, i know almost every aspect of it. But no one here answered my question fully, nor did you understand the obsolete thing. The card still works great yeah but heres a few pointers...

Never buy a new technology when it first comes out*cough* Dual core, vista, dx10*cough* Cause it will always be revisioned and made better and cheaper in about a half a year to a year. The 8800 GTS have been beaten by 8800 GT's for a cheaper price... why buy an 8800 GTS, its outdated *i dont know how to say it other than obsolete or outdated, deal with it!* But theyll make a revisioned model that will play games much better.

Besides why did you guys buy dx10 before there were any dx10 games on the market? I also like to keep in mind that i know that pc's are much more powerful, but you really dont see the difference in visuals, unless you arent really playing the game, and instead just lookin at the visuals. I also pointed out that i cant stand a game controller, i dont get the precision and contol that i would with a mouse and keyboard. I like to play CAL! Also i know pc'scan do alot more, but thats not the reason im buying it nor do i care about it. They should still cost about $1000 for an extreme pc... thats my thought. I think that that should be the highest end price. Dont comment back saying "They cant do that because..." or "Your an idiot!" I dont care, thats my opinion.

My current rig:

Pentium D 2.8ghz
ATI x300 Running at 320mhz core *cough* Crappy card *cough*
1gb DDR ram
250 GB wd 7200RPM hardrive
windows xp media center edition
and i ont know the mobo...


So do you guys think that i will be able to play full high settings with 1280 x 1240 resolution for the next 3 years on a 8800 GT?
November 12, 2007 6:30:15 PM

the yeti said:
Never buy a new technology when it first comes out*cough* Dual core, vista, dx10*cough* Cause it will always be revisioned and made better and cheaper in about a half a year to a year. The 8800 GTS have been beaten by 8800 GT's for a cheaper price... why buy an 8800 GTS, its outdated *i dont know how to say it other than obsolete or outdated, deal with it!* But theyll make a revisioned model that will play games much better.


Yeah, well, there is ALWAYS going to be something better coming out, no matter what, so if you spend all your time waiting for price drops and newer better products, then you'll end up never buying anything.

Quote:
Besides why did you guys buy dx10 before there were any dx10 games on the market? I also like to keep in mind that i know that pc's are much more powerful, but you really dont see the difference in visuals, unless you arent really playing the game, and instead just lookin at the visuals. I also pointed out that i cant stand a game controller, i dont get the precision and contol that i would with a mouse and keyboard. I like to play CAL! Also i know pc'scan do alot more, but thats not the reason im buying it nor do i care about it. They should still cost about $1000 for an extreme pc... thats my thought. I think that that should be the highest end price. Dont comment back saying "They cant do that because..." or "Your an idiot!" I dont care, thats my opinion.


You can get extreme PCs for $800, if you want one so bad.

My current rig:

Pentium D 2.8ghz
ATI x300 Running at 320mhz core *cough* Crappy card *cough*
1gb DDR ram
250 GB wd 7200RPM hardrive
windows xp media center edition
and i ont know the mobo...

So do you guys think that i will be able to play full high settings with 1280 x 1240 resolution for the next 3 years on a 8800 GT? said:
My current rig:

Pentium D 2.8ghz
ATI x300 Running at 320mhz core *cough* Crappy card *cough*
1gb DDR ram
250 GB wd 7200RPM hardrive
windows xp media center edition
and i ont know the mobo...

So do you guys think that i will be able to play full high settings with 1280 x 1240 resolution for the next 3 years on a 8800 GT?


Yes. If not, just turn off AA at 2.5 years later or something. It's not a big deal to turn a few settings down.
November 12, 2007 6:32:12 PM

Well, I'm playing most current games on high settings with an X1900XT, and I can see myself stil playing games that way for another year. So to answer your question, yes.
PC gaming does not have to be expensive, unless you have to own the absolute best hardware, which is totally unnecessary to play games on maximum settings (Crysis excluded).
November 12, 2007 7:10:43 PM

Thank you verry much! That was verry helpful! O and what i meant by dont buy the new technology when it first comes out, i meant wait about 6 months for price drops or new models, but im taking a chance an imma buy penryn when it comes out =] E8400 3.0 GHz $200
November 12, 2007 7:34:09 PM

I know this will not go down well with some lol , but I personally think buying a Quad Core processor now is a waste of time. hardly anything supports it and it consumes significantly more power than current C2D processors. I wouldn't touch a Quad core until at least the the Penryn or maybe the Phenom when the technology has improved.

November 12, 2007 7:48:24 PM

The one im getting is dual core... but do you think i should wait before buying it? Im wondering if me Pentium d will take crysis well =[
November 12, 2007 8:29:18 PM

Quote:
So do you guys think that i will be able to play full high settings with 1280 x 1240 resolution for the next 3 years on a 8800 GT?

No, but To me the fact that PC games push better hardware is a good thing. We keep progressing. Can you image how a PC game 3 years from now could look compared to a PS3 that's doesn't get better and better?
November 12, 2007 10:56:20 PM

PC prices have actually come DOWN over the last 10 years quite a lot.

I remember ~10 years ago, spending $2k AUD, and getting a pc that couldnt play current games at max. More importantly, i felt that h/ware was SO underpowered. Games like Unreal were still unplayable at max a few years after it came out.

Today if u spend 2k on a sys u get something that should play all current games on max, and if not, u still feel like ur getting a good experience out of it.

Some people complain about tech advancing TOO fast. Others not fast enough.

U can never compare PC's to consles. Often consoles are sold at a loss. The money is made up on games. The console life cycle remember isnt that long either. 5 years for the xbox.
PC gaming will always cost more. I think it is becoming more affordable.
November 12, 2007 11:06:43 PM

speedbird said:
I know this will not go down well with some lol , but I personally think buying a Quad Core processor now is a waste of time. hardly anything supports it ...


Video encoding and processing is supported.

Oh yeah!!!
November 13, 2007 3:04:28 AM

WOW! thanks for the info!! Yes i already ue newegg and everything, but $125 off!! O.o. I also find PC's fun and interesting, and study and leanr about them every day... although, i too have a life, get good grades, BMX, ppaintball, ect. Where is it that your from? Im from California. Anyway nice chatting, and thanks again!
November 13, 2007 5:13:59 AM

speedbird said:
I know this will not go down well with some lol , but I personally think buying a Quad Core processor now is a waste of time. hardly anything supports it and it consumes significantly more power than current C2D processors. I wouldn't touch a Quad core until at least the the Penryn or maybe the Phenom when the technology has improved.


If you buy a processor to last for 3 years then you better consider a quadcore, now. I fully agree that it would be better to wait till Q1 with intel's upcoming line-up but something like that will always pop up every quarter, so it basically depends on when you really need to buy and then buy something that has a future for at least 2 years, but preferably (if possible) for 3 years.

The big games that are slated to be released now (Crysis, etc) will be supporting quad cores, and definitely a game like Alan Wake will be supporting quadcore (to be released somewhere first half of 2008, although I have not heard much about it lately. Would not be surprised if it will be later than Q2).
November 13, 2007 8:10:20 AM

Building PC’s does not cost too much as long as you know what you are doing. For instance I now have an 8800GTX, Q6600 @ 2.7GHz, 2GB’s of DDR2 800MHz and a new 700W PSU all for £530. I just used all my old PC parts to fill all the gaps and that must have saved me almost one third of the price. A 360 on the other hand would still cost me £280 and I would have to buy a HD telly to make it playable. And they cost about £400 for something usable with the console. So in that respect the PC upgrade was actually a cheaper option for me than buying a console. Not to mention the fact that I would have to pay on average 30% extra for the console games.

The truth is, I have both of these. I just recently upgraded my PC and I got an X360 a few months after it was released (it has been replaced due to the red ring of death). The PC upgrade was needed as I had been using the same PC parts for close to 3 years by then. X800XT PE and a 3500+, it was still able to play game like Prey at 1680X1050 but with the recent releases of games it was finally starting to show it’s age with me having to go below native resolutions to run the latest games.

Now with the new hardware I am able to make games like Crysis playable at 1680X1050 with all the settings set to their highest settings bar one. My X360 would be lucky to even come close to what my PC can do and it cost me more because of the TV screen to buy then my PC upgrade. Good thing though is that I will still be able to buy games for the console for the next 3 years but it’s a shame the graphical quality and complexity of the games wont evolve at the same rate the PC’s will.

You can guess what I will be playing more on in 2 years time cant you.
November 13, 2007 12:47:50 PM

BigMac said:

So the really interesting question for me is, why do I feel like I'm being ripped off then?

an interesting quote I found somewhere (i can't remember where, I think it was somewhere obscure)

"simple, the answer is forums and the fact that you CAN upgrade
my logic? Because with a console, you get the console that is out at the time, and that is that, there is no way of upgrading, no way of tweaking that is it, however with a computer, you read this forum and you hear of people saying wow, X game is so fun with X gfx card its so awesome, and you discover that YOU had to turn down the graphics on YOUR rig, which reflects on YOU YOU cheapo."

im not sure I agree, i just thought it was an interesting point of view.
November 13, 2007 2:40:53 PM

The console groups don’t have 3rd party (community) developed content...
November 14, 2007 1:04:59 AM

I have long debated this issue with my friends as I am a hardcore PC gamer, and have been for the last 10 years. I recently bought my son a 360 so I have been struggling over whether to upgrade my aging PC. (Dell XPS gen 3)

I think the OP hits some major nerves. For one, I too have grown weary with the constant upgrading. At first it was like a hobby and I enjoyed it, but with increasing cost it has grown tedious, not fun. I also grow weary with every new game coming out needing to be "tweaked" to run well. I had to do this even when my PC was current. You still need to tweak this and that to squeeze out max FPS. Just read the article on Crysis - it is the same with every game. Sometimes ATI drivers are disadvantaged, other times it is Nvidia. Sometimes it's the sound card. With the 360, I know if I buy it and stick it in the drive it will work well and play well. (assuming the 360 works, LOL, with the ROD, etc.)

But, the controllers suck compared to a mouse. I really like the 360 controller's design, but you still lack the precision of a mouse.

The reality is every major game developer's primary development thrust is consoles first, then the PC gets the port. I have read up extensively on this topic and that's the truth - because that is where the money is. Read this: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=1...

COD 4 will outsell Halo because it was released across all console platforms in addition to the PC, and the PC will barely show a dent compared to any platform sales.

With the exception of Crysis, there is no AAA game coming out that will not be released on a console. At E3, every game was being shown on a console, not a PC. The reality is if you don't already have a gaming rig and want to start gaming, you are better off with a console, unless you want to play MMORPG's. Multiplayer on the 360 is also very weak compared to PC's. For example, COD 4 supports 32 players on the PC versus a measley 18 on the 360.

So, really, it is a tough question which way to go - but I am unlikely to upgrade and get a new rig like I have every three years in the past. I just don't see a future in PC gaming anymore. And believe me, if you knew me, for me to say that is a major act of heresy.
November 14, 2007 6:55:33 AM

His Shadow said:
With the exception of Crysis, there is no AAA game coming out that will not be released on a console.


That made me check up on Alan Wake, and indeed that game is slated for both PC and xbox360. I seriously wonder how they are going to pull that off, regarding the footage I have seen so far. My guess is that the PC version will be better on all fronts regarding graphics and physics.

Fully agree with your sentiments and I feel similar regrets.
November 14, 2007 8:17:47 AM

Yeah online gaming is far superior on the PC, for a start the 360 does not have any dedicated servers. It’s all home users with very slow upload speeds that let all the players lag to hell. The PS3 though does have a lot of dedicated servers for their online games thus it being a slightly better platform for online gaming but still not the best.

I think all this talk about what is the better platform or what is the cheapest is just nonsense. I mean sure a PC costs more but then it does more. If you want a PC that does higher resolutions and fancy graphics in your games then you can expect to pay for it. But someone that cannot afford the elite in hardware should not complain about the cost they should simply put up with second best.

After all do people complain about Ford Mondeos not being as fast as Bentley GT Continentals? No because the Bentley costs £180,000 and the Ford Mondeo costs £15,000. They both do the same job but the Bentley does it faster and with better looks and comforts.

You can get a PC to run games just as well as the 360 can with a couple of hundred quid worth of upgrades to a bog standard PC. I could have got Crysis to run on my old PC and I sold all those parts for £100, I could even run games like Oblivion with the same graphical quality as a 360 could, in fact it ran it better.

At the end of the day the mass market is never going to be able to afford the top tear of computer hardware. Just like the average person on the street is never going to be driving about in a GT Continental. But without these cars and with out the latest in computer hardware and software to run on them, we would see no progress and the mainstream would continually drag progress in these sectors back.

In 50 years we will be driving cars that we paid the equivalent to a mondeo for but drive just as fast as a GT Continental. But if we only settled for mainstream and we never built newer and faster cars that almost no one could afford we would not be driving cars that fast in the future.

So to conclude, just because you cant afford to purchase PC parts that can run Crysis at it’s brilliant best does not mean that the PC market is too expensive. It simply means that you have to lower all the settings and settle for what it would look like if the game were to be on the 360.
November 14, 2007 3:23:53 PM

If anything I believe PC gaming is cheaper then it used to be.

I bought my first computer to play games back around 94 (I think) for 3k. That was a basic 486DX2 so I could play x-wing etc.

That barely lasted 2 years (and that was stretching it!) because I had couldnt run windows 95 or play newer games.

Next up was a pentium 200. about another 2500 (with no monitor). Started to play online at this point. Think 15 bucks/month is expensive for online games? Try $10.00/hour. And that was even cheaper then what some have paid. got me a nice 400 credit card bill ;)  not to mention 150 phonebill because I didnt have local call-in numbers.

That barely lasted 2 years. Again I couldnt play newer games.

Next up I splurged on an alienware pentium 500 for 3k. Top of the line. had flippin 3 graphic cards. replaced them at the end but again it only lasted 2 years.

Next I finally built my own. Pentium 1.7Ghz. cant remember what else i put into it. But it only cost me 1700 for the build. heck of a lot cheaper then buying one outright.

But! only lasted about 2 years but at least I had only dropped 1700.

My current computer is a P4 3.0. When I built it I spent about 1600. But that was 4 years ago. Still runs fine. I have upgraded the memory to 2Gb and recently installed a x1950 pro to keep me good for another 6 month to a year.

Now if you want to run the best graphics out there then obviously you will be forking out the dollars every 6 months but you dont have too. I still have a 19" crt ;) 

So for all the money I spent I could have easily bought every console that came out twice over. but there is just something about PC gaming that I like better. It is a hobby.

Thinking way back to all the different boot disks I had to try to get different games running. Challenging and fun for me and then I have more fun playing the game!

So, to sum up the novel I just wrote: Its not cheap but not as expensive as it used to be. Of course most of you probably dont remember the good ole days when parts were really expensive. hundreds of dollars for a 32 meg stick of memory ;) 

Hard drive? what is that? we used tape players if our family had money ;) 
November 20, 2007 5:48:20 PM

LOL well now that i FINALLY read through all the comments, and now that i think about it, PC gaming is much cheaper, but not cheap enough! I do have the money for the top of the line stuff, but thats a waste of money, because it wont last long, and on the other hand i need to buy a car, preferably a truck. Anyway thanks alot for all those who responded to my thread! Im closing the discussion here!

*So i dont have to read so many comments =]
November 20, 2007 6:50:24 PM

the yeti said:
PC gaming used to be the affordable, inovative, superior gaming solution! But over the years it has become expensive, and tough to maintain. For example, 6 months after people bought 8800 gts's they became obsolete! Why is this? :heink:  Why is it that new technology must come out for PC's every 6 months and Game consoles last about 4 years? I ask myself this all the time! That and the other question which is, WHY IS PC GAMING SO EXPENSIVE?? Just a good graphics card cost about $500! You can get a PS3 for that price with graphics that are just as good! So why is it so expensive?? :fou:  Can anyone answer me these questions?

I almost want to switch to console gaming, but i cant stand controllers, must have a mouse and keyboard! :pfff: 





Hate to tell you this mate, but I am still using a geForce 6800 ultra rig and I play the latest games with zero problems. The 6800 ultra is old enough that you can't even buy the darn things anymore.
November 20, 2007 6:55:32 PM

the yeti said:

My current rig:

Pentium D 2.8ghz
ATI x300 Running at 320mhz core *cough* Crappy card *cough*
1gb DDR ram
250 GB wd 7200RPM hardrive
windows xp media center edition
and i ont know the mobo...


So do you guys think that i will be able to play full high settings with 1280 x 1240 resolution for the next 3 years on a 8800 GT?


LOL !!!!!

Like I said, I still run a 6800 ultra rig and I play everything in 1680 x 1050 with no problems at all. I could run in a higher rez, but my primary display went TU and I am stuck using a wide screen display at the moment.
November 20, 2007 8:26:30 PM

I am not a big fan of PC gaming probably because my computer is not designed for it.
November 21, 2007 7:00:09 AM

JerryC said:
Hate to tell you this mate, but I am still using a geForce 6800 ultra rig and I play the latest games with zero problems. The 6800 ultra is old enough that you can't even buy the darn things anymore.


Running the latest games on low settings is not a challenge. Aside from that, you should also include your cpu and memory specs if you want others to understand your point.

I still have a 6800GTS, and amd64 3800+ with 2Mb DDR2 and it is definitely not able to run Crysis in any form that I would like to experience it in. I could probably tone it down plenty and play the game but the fun in a game like Crysis is at least 50-50 between eye candy and game play.

I just bought the orange box the other day and I haven't tackled HL2 ep1 and 2 yet, but portal and teamfortress2 I can play decently on 1280x960 (4/3 aspect ratio). I will hold off on Crysis until I've bought a new rig in 2008Q1.
November 21, 2007 8:08:28 AM

console games are more innovative (in terms of gameplay).
console games are more stable.

but then again console graphics are almost equal to the medium settings on nextgen pc games.

the pc gives you your moneys worth day in and day out.

oh btw the price of a decent hdtv is how much?
November 21, 2007 9:42:17 AM

I just had a flashback to when I was in college and I bought my first 3d card, an AGP Voodoo 3 3000. It was an awesome card and lasted me for 3 years of great gaming. It still works; I have it in an old PC I just put back together.

Its great for playing games like NFS:High Stakes in Windows 98.

It cost me $99 (It had just been reduced from $149). The good ole days.
November 21, 2007 10:44:27 AM

For what it's worth, the answer to why we spend all that money and time on PC gaming rather than on a console is because we want to. PC gamers and Console gamers are different breads - with a few hybrids who cross over.

We have two consoles and one PC soon to be two. I like PC gaming because, getting my PC to a level where it can play system demanding games is a challenge in itself.

Console gaming is easy and (on the whole) for people who aren't interested in how things work - which is of course fine.

Don't forget PC games are often cheaper, so in theory if you buy alot it helps off set the cost of having to build a decent PC over buying an off the shelf console.

The only downside is that people think you (we) are sad for being obsessed by what's inside the computer! - and they are probably right most of the time.

Time for an upgrade anyone...................
November 21, 2007 12:48:59 PM

PC gaming vs Console gaming.

PC gaming, if it costs 2x to 8x as much as the console, is often a much more thrilling, graphically intense, and immersing experience.

Mouse and Keyboard offer superior controls.
Single player on a 22" 1680x1050 LCD beats the **** out of you 40" 720p (1280x720) CRT "HD TV".
Games are always $10 cheaper than their 360 counterpart.
Companies use steam so you can forget that CDs even exist.
You can upgrade anytime you want, any way you want.
You can't pay $180/$100 for a hard drive that ONLY works with one computer and would normally cost $100/$30.

Of course, console gaming, although the experience is still potentially hardcore, it will never be as serious as PC gaming. PC is just for gaming elite, and the elite will probably have a PC and all consoles (if money allows).
November 21, 2007 2:28:12 PM

BigMac said:
I just bought the orange box the other day and I haven't tackled HL2 ep1 and 2 yet, but portal and teamfortress2 I can play decently on 1280x960 (4/3 aspect ratio). I will hold off on Crysis until I've bought a new rig in 2008Q1.


Episode 2 seems to be substantially more graphics-hungry than Episode 1; I played through Ep1 at 2048x1536 with 4xAA on my 7800GS, but I had to drop to 1280x960 on Ep2 to get an acceptable frame-rate.
November 21, 2007 4:29:33 PM

I just built a great rig for about $875. I took some research and a little experience, but when it was all screwed together it booted right up. Everything runs great on it, including the latest games, and I use it for a host of non-gaming applications as well. This was my first upgrade since 2003 - I recommend Newegg for some seriously amazing prices.

I've been told that PC gaming is dead since 1997. I think that what we're seeing, however, is a switch in markets. If I'm right (and I could be totally wrong, natch), Europe will become the primary PC game market with the US getting translated imports. Extrapolating from the current trend, I anticipate that the PC game market will see fewer, but higher-quality games released with an ever increasing availability of user-created content.

The one trend that I'm still very uncertain about is what the next 'next-gen' consoles will be like. I'm guessing that they will be even more similar to PCs than the current generation. If so, it will be wierd - like buying a mac designed to play games - all proprietary hardware and software controlled by Sony or, more likely, Microsoft.

I dunno, just some thoughts....
November 21, 2007 9:57:22 PM

oh btw, pc games are expansion-capable

November 22, 2007 1:26:22 AM

You guys forgot the best part of PC gaming, replay value. By that I mean mods, mods, and more mods. This is the only reason I will never ever buy a console. I have tons of different mods for every game I own. 100's of hours added replay because of them. How games we play today started as mods? And how many started as mods for consoles.......oh sorry, I forgot you are stuck with the same lame original content that came with your over priced game. How many console gamers have played GTA online in multiplayer, or Desert Combat for BF 1942, or on a server that has more than 32 people? I have, on my PC.

On the flip side, with consoles you can simply rent games and return them after you have beat them, for very cheap.
November 22, 2007 3:00:41 AM

I could not keep reading all the post, but I wanted to put in my $0.02!

1. PC Gaming is expensive if you need to brag about your box.

2. PC > Console because of all the other uses for a PC. BUT with that said you can get a internet/media PC for dirt cheap. That amount of money you spend on getting a PC for media grade to gaming grade is about the same cost of a console.

I personally have a wife and small child. I only have about $300 to upgrade my PC, but instead I am going to invest more money into my console for games that we can all play. I am thinking about getting away from PC gaming because it can/does take up too much time when you have a family. If I am going to be playing games I would rather play Mario Party 8 with the wife.

I have always love Shooters and you cant beat PC Shooters, but my 7600GT will power most current games at 1024 res and med detail. I dont have to have 100% eye candy turned on. As long as I can pull 45+ fps and never go under I am happy.
November 22, 2007 5:12:04 AM

Need I say it?

Mods/Customizations/Patches..... These are worth every penny of difference.

Can you manually customize your console control to do everything that it wasn't designed for? Easy to remap on computer, manually or the way the developers designed it..... And I have a friend still using a 9800pro, it's not all about the latest and greatest.

November 22, 2007 8:38:10 AM

Hi all,

Should say I don't own a console!! But I ain't no PC fanboy, oh no!! I even have a friend at work who has an Xbox 360 - I kid you not!! I wouldn't buy a console anyway because I would end up with no life outside gaming!!


For PC gaming the key advantage is incremental upgrading. Upfront payouts will pay off later on. Get a very end PSU. You can make a PC run a whole lot'a'years if you get a good case and fit some high-end watercooling. Then you replace the blocks as you upgrade components. Flog the old gear on Ebay!!

With a PC you can get optimal price performance parts. Like the X1900 Pro (512Mb version) I am running... This GPU can play the Crysis demo (@ medium quality 1600x1200) and eats up older games!!

Also it should be noted that games do not get better over time. While they do tend to get better looking the actual game play does often suffer... I am back playing Doom 3 because in SP it still outshines most modern games (@ 1600x1200 Ultra quality)... OK I do like BF2 and BF2142 in MP. My favourite game Deus Ex 1 has yet to be matched in SP by the games I have played over the years...(Any suggestions gratefully received of course cough, cough - let the flame war start).


BTW I am only 10 years old!!

But seriously when I was 10 I had already build a scale replica of the Cray 2 - look at kids these days all just playing games!!

Bob
!