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?    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??   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!  

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
 
 

8800GTS Obsolete?    

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."
 

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?

---------------
+10 Sarcasm, +999 Jackload, +1 Inevitable reference , +3 original bonus, +1 amateur thief, + Pedantry, +5 Bunny, +2 Kicking while down, +3 Puking, +5 Messianic Approval, +10 OQ

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."

Get a console! PCs can do internet, music, msn, media, EVERYTHING

Exactly!

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.

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”.

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

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!"

"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.

 
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.  

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.

 
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?
 

Can Not, I was agreeing with you, by the way.

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?

 
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.
 

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

 
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.

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).