Is PC gaming cost effective?

After posting in a PC game rental thread it got me thinking... with so many games going multiplatform these days is PC gaming cost effective anymore?

Consider that with games shifting over to DirectX 10 (which means Vista is a requirement) and single core Pentium 4's quickly becoming a thing of the past, a lot of gamers are going to have to upgrade a few parts of their systems. Or even nearly their entire system if they're like myself (P4 3.0GHz, 1GB ram, Nvidia GeForce 6800 256mb).

However what would I be upgrading for? Crysis would be one title to list of course, but what else? So many of the big games that I'd have to upgrade my system for (BioShock*, Fallout 3, Project Offset) are multiplatform titles. Exclusives like Spore aren't going to have the same steep requirements.

I guess what I'm getting at here is if multiplatform gaming is the direction the industry wants to take, which by all accounts it seems to be where it's headed, then is PC gaming going to be worth keeping up with? A lot of PC gamers (including myself)feel that multiplatforming results in an underwhelming experience when compared to traditional PC titles which were designed for the PC (regardless of if they were ported to consoles afterwards).

With that in mind wouldn't it be more cost-effective to play those games on a console where they can be rented for $5 rather than having to pay $60 to "enjoy" another dumbed down game? And don't get me wrong here, I'm not promoting consoles. Rather I'm saying is it worth it to upgrade when the PC is getting the same games? I think developers need to give us more exclusives to justify the costs surrounding PC gaming.

*edit: BioShock wont be a Vista exclusive. It will have some DX10 options for Vista users but it's not a requirement.

Before the onset of the "next gen consoles" as they call them, nobody questioned things like this. Now that these amazing powerful next-gen consoles are out, people see less of a reason to get a PC.

What people fail to realise is that no matter what, the consoles will become inferior again in a couple of years because PCs evolve and get more powerful (meaning better games), but consoles are just static. Give it a couple of years, and nobody will be askimg things like this. Cost wise, technology gets cheaper every year. If anyone's read GSs ATI HD 2000 card lineup, you can see that their cheapest DX10 card is only between $50-$80. You can barely buy a console game for the money to purchase a card a lot more powerful than a console's :/

Oh I have no doubt PC gaming will have shot past consoles in a few years from now, but I'm referring to the current state of games. With so many titles being multiplatform I'm sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out whyI'd upgrade my PC now since I'd have to upgrade again once PC's go past consoles. Once the multiplatform phase is over and we're getting PC exclusives the costs will be justified, but are they right now?

I don't just mean the hardware, I mean software too. Dishing out $50 for the exact same game I could have rented for a month for half that cost gets me a bit miffed.

well.....ermm....possibly. the PC needed to run those multiplats would be fairly expensive (probably costing a fair bit more than a console). however those games are also going ot be cheaper to buy on PC. dirt is nerly half as cheap on PC compared to 360. so it depends on how many games u buy.

overall its not as cost effective though imho. however PC still has its exclusives (like the witcher) and generally speaking, the multiplats are better on the PC imho. i know ill be getting the likes of UT3 and bioshock for my PC, not my 360.

as for renting....that is a nice addition that consoles have allright. im not sure if theres any PC service that allows u to rent. there are demos which will give u an idea of what the game will be like i suppose but thats as close as it gets.

If anyone's read GSs ATI HD 2000 card lineup, you can see that their cheapest DX10 card is only between $50-$80. You can barely buy a console game for the money to purchase a card a lot more powerful than a console's :/

FragMonkey09

you don't need a top pf the line rig and contrary to what some people think you don't even need a dx10 card atm with vista being new and problematic and there being few dx10 games and the few having very little difference graphically with huge perofrmance losses.

the upfront cost for a PC is more then a console...but you have to realize that....

1. PC games cost less.

2. PC games get mods....which increase the playability by so much.

3. Free online.

4. Better Graphics

5. Larger online games.

for example COD2...360=8 players...PC=64 players

6. ETC.

the upfront cost for a PC is more then a console...but you have to realize that....

1. PC games cost less.

2. PC games get mods....which increase the playability by so much.

3. Free online.

4. Better Graphics

5. Larger online games.

for example COD2...360=8 players...PC=64 players

6. ETC.

cobrax75

cheaper? half of pc gamers dont even pay for mostof theirgames.

you can allways get pc games for free if you know where to go. thats all.

Is PC gaming cost effective? to me that question is like asking a die hard football/soccer supporter why he should spend X amount each year for a season ticket when he can just watch it on the TV for half the price.

I would honestley say go with what ever you feel you enjoy the most. ;)

It's cost effective for people like me. I can go out and buy a new pc every year or two and right it off on the business account. That equals a tax writeoff for my work and a new gaming rig for my "work breaks". Considering I do a lot of graphic entensive and 3D work my rig even justifies a good video card.

:)

personally i love PC gaming here are a couple of reasons i like PCs:

1. more games than any console. Its not like on a ps3/ 360 if you want to try a free demo of a game you can just download it but instead you have to rent it from a store for around 7$ or borrow it from a friend who has that next gen console and that exact game you want.

2. extremely compatible and no chip installing for hacks / home-brew, you can easily make a backup of a game and play it without the risk of installing a chip that might not work or break you system.

3. upgradable, if you want more power out of your ps3 or 360 your out of luck you cant upgrade it. With PCs there tonnes of things you can upgrade so it has WAY MORE POWER than a ps3 or Xbox 360, i wont bother going through a list of the things you can upgrade.

4. way more controls. On most console games you cant even change the controls its like: use these controls or f*** you. On a PC there's lots of different keys you can set your controls to i prefer: w,s,a,d for move, q,e,r,f,caps and tabs for actions and 1234567890 for select different items.

and thats why i like PC gaming

1. more games than any console. Its not like on a ps3/ 360 if you want to try a free demo of a game you can just download it but instead you have to rent it from a store for around 7$ or borrow it from a friend who has that next gen console and that exact game you want.slauterer911

I can justify the cost of pc gaming due to the fact I do ALOT more than just game on my pc, I make a living on a pc!dmb34

For a while now I've had no plans to upgrade my PC until well into 2008, so at that point hopefully we'll have a better indication of where PC gaming is going. DX10 is brand new right now... I can't even think of any games off the top of my head thatare slated to be DX10 exclusive, that's still atleast a year away.

Perhaps rather than investing in their Games for Windows campaign, Microsoft should be spending that cash on coming up with a way to solve software piracy. They likely wouldn't find anything to stop it in it's tracks, but atleast then they'd be doing something to help PC gaming, rather than destroying it.

For those talking about PC gaming being a hobby, what I'm getting at here is if we're playing the exact same games as console gamers (due to multiplatforming) it seems silly to me that I'd have to upgrade my PC when I could buy a console for cheaper. It's not like sport fans, collectors and whatnot because they don't have a cheaper yet identical copy of that hobby. If we got more exclusives that'd be different. There just doesn't seem to be enough right now to justify having to upgrade to the coming DX10+Vista age.

Hopefully by next year we'll have a better idea of how DX10, Vista, and MS's drive for cross-platform gaming has affected the industry.

the upfront cost for a PC is more then a console...but you have to realize that....

1. PC games cost less.

2. PC games get mods....which increase the playability by so much.

3. Free online.

4. Better Graphics

5. Larger online games.

for example COD2...360=8 players...PC=64 players

6. ETC.

cobrax75

QFT

[QUOTE="FragMonkey09"]

If anyone's read GSs ATI HD 2000 card lineup, you can see that their cheapest DX10 card is only between $50-$80. You can barely buy a console game for the money to purchase a card a lot more powerful than a console's :/

WhiteSnake5000

As am I. My rig is nothing compared to others. I have a 2.8 gigs P4, 1 gig of ram, and a 6200 TC! I agree that PCs are expensive and I'm not the kind that absolutely needs to have the highest and greatest graphical settings in my games. If I can run the game at a decent FPS, then everything else is just a bonus :)

[QUOTE="slauterer911"]1. more games than any console. Its not like on a ps3/ 360 if you want to try a free demo of a game you can just download it but instead you have to rent it from a store for around 7$ or borrow it from a friend who has that next gen console and that exact game you want.sircyrus

I can justify the cost of pc gaming due to the fact I do ALOT more than just game on my pc, I make a living on a pc!dmb34

For a while now I've had no plans to upgrade my PC until well into 2008, so at that point hopefully we'll have a better indication of where PC gaming is going. DX10 is brand new right now... I can't even think of any games off the top of my head thatare slated to be DX10 exclusive, that's still atleast a year away.

Perhaps rather than investing in their Games for Windows campaign, Microsoft should be spending that cash on coming up with a way to solve software piracy. They likely wouldn't find anything to stop it in it's tracks, but atleast then they'd be doing something to help PC gaming, rather than destroying it.

For those talking about PC gaming being a hobby, what I'm getting at here is if we're playing the exact same games as console gamers (due to multiplatforming) it seems silly to me that I'd have to upgrade my PC when I could buy a console for cheaper. It's not like sport fans, collectors and whatnot because they don't have a cheaper yet identical copy of that hobby. If we got more exclusives that'd be different. There just doesn't seem to be enough right now to justify having to upgrade to the coming DX10+Vista age.

Hopefully by next year we'll have a better idea of how DX10, Vista, and MS's drive for cross-platform gaming has affected the industry.

live is garbage. i will not buy a game only have to pay another 50 dollers to have the guns and maps i want. without the option to create my own maps mods and guns. oh yeah we are talking about demos. the demos i believe can only be on your xbox hard drive for a certain time. and the demos i have seen, well..... they are crappy. no fun reallly. trust me pc games in the long run will you cost you more than consoles, in the long run, and in ways you wont think of, but it does cost less.

After posting in a PC game rental thread it got me thinking... with so many games going multiplatform these days is PC gaming cost effective anymore?

Consider that with games shifting over to DirectX 10 (which means Vista is a requirement) and single core Pentium 4's quickly becoming a thing of the past, a lot of gamers are going to have to upgrade a few parts of their systems. Or even nearly their entire system if they're like myself (P4 3.0GHz, 1GB ram, Nvidia GeForce 6800 256mb).

However what would I be upgrading for? Crysis would be one title to list of course, but what else? So many of the big games that I'd have to upgrade my system for (BioShock*, Fallout 3, Project Offset) are multiplatform titles. Exclusives like Spore aren't going to have the same steep requirements.

I guess what I'm getting at here is if multiplatform gaming is the direction the industry wants to take, which by all accounts it seems to be where it's headed, then is PC gaming going to be worth keeping up with? A lot of PC gamers (including myself)feel that multiplatforming results in an underwhelming experience when compared to traditional PC titles which were designed for the PC (regardless of if they were ported to consoles afterwards).

With that in mind wouldn't it be more cost-effective to play those games on a console where they can be rented for $5 rather than having to pay $60 to "enjoy" another dumbed down game? And don't get me wrong here, I'm not promoting consoles. Rather I'm saying is it worth it to upgrade when the PC is getting the same games? I think developers need to give us more exclusives to justify the costs surrounding PC gaming.

*edit: BioShock wont be a Vista exclusive. It will have some DX10 options for Vista users but it's not a requirement.

sircyrus

Here

A relatively complete pc that is more powerful than any console out there,for $538.44

Anyway If you are going to whine about cost effectiveness, skip PC and Console gaming all together and just get a Nintendo DS. That's where the bang for the buck is.

Before the onset of the "next gen consoles" as they call them, nobody questioned things like this. Now that these amazing powerful next-gen consoles are out, people see less of a reason to get a PC.

What people fail to realise is that no matter what, the consoles will become inferior again in a couple of years because PCs evolve and get more powerful (meaning better games), but consoles are just static. Give it a couple of years, and nobody will be askimg things like this. Cost wise, technology gets cheaper every year. If anyone's read GSs ATI HD 2000 card lineup, you can see that their cheapest DX10 card is only between $50-$80. You can barely buy a console game for the money to purchase a card a lot more powerful than a console's :/

FragMonkey09

SO true dude, you can have epic pc rig for 10 years plus, although consoles are great, PC is great for everything, new releases are cheaper and just as effective, plenty of games, and PCs are constantly upgradeable, other than consoles which will have to remake their consoles every 8 or 9 years.

Dont forget your consoles that break or any problems that you have, although renting consoles games are uber, canada can rent pc games, or atleast when i lived there.

I think they are both great gaming rigs.

[QUOTE="sircyrus"]

After posting in a PC game rental thread it got me thinking... with so many games going multiplatform these days is PC gaming cost effective anymore?

Consider that with games shifting over to DirectX 10 (which means Vista is a requirement) and single core Pentium 4's quickly becoming a thing of the past, a lot of gamers are going to have to upgrade a few parts of their systems. Or even nearly their entire system if they're like myself (P4 3.0GHz, 1GB ram, Nvidia GeForce 6800 256mb).

However what would I be upgrading for? Crysis would be one title to list of course, but what else? So many of the big games that I'd have to upgrade my system for (BioShock*, Fallout 3, Project Offset) are multiplatform titles. Exclusives like Spore aren't going to have the same steep requirements.

I guess what I'm getting at here is if multiplatform gaming is the direction the industry wants to take, which by all accounts it seems to be where it's headed, then is PC gaming going to be worth keeping up with? A lot of PC gamers (including myself)feel that multiplatforming results in an underwhelming experience when compared to traditional PC titles which were designed for the PC (regardless of if they were ported to consoles afterwards).

With that in mind wouldn't it be more cost-effective to play those games on a console where they can be rented for $5 rather than having to pay $60 to "enjoy" another dumbed down game? And don't get me wrong here, I'm not promoting consoles. Rather I'm saying is it worth it to upgrade when the PC is getting the same games? I think developers need to give us more exclusives to justify the costs surrounding PC gaming.

*edit: BioShock wont be a Vista exclusive. It will have some DX10 options for Vista users but it's not a requirement.

mikemil828

Here

A relatively complete pc that is more powerful than any console out there,for $538.44

Anyway If you are going to whine about cost effectiveness, skip PC and Console gaming all together and just get a Nintendo DS. That's where the bang for the buck is.

That technically isn't more powerful than an Xbox 360 or PS3.WhiteSnake5000

Then only invest a bit more for the graphic's card and get a 8800 GTX and you will have a machine that utterly defeats any console in the market -.-U

[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"]That technically isn't more powerful than an Xbox 360 or PS3.Mithrandir0x

Then only invest a bit more for the graphic's card and get a 8800 GTX and you will have a machine that utterly defeats any console in the market -.-U

It's not a matter of the PC being more powerful than consoles, some of you are missing the point.

Due to the multiplatform trend we're getting a lot of the exact same games as consoles are. Of the PC exclusives, few have the high requirements of, for example, Crysis. Since the "big games" are almost all going multiplatform (most recently being Fallout3) how is it cost effective for a PC gamer to upgrade their PC at this time in order to run games like Crysis smoothly? The consoles can be purchased for close to or cheaper than the upgrades for someone with a system like mine, and factor in that I could rent games for $5 rather than having to buy them for $50 and it becomes even cheaper.

This isn't about hardware so much as it is about the PC gaming industry not ponying up enough incentives to keep up with it. That will certainly change in a couple years when PC's have once again jumped past the consoles, but really from now untilQ2 2009 why would a gamer in my position want to upgrade their PC to run identical games to the consoles, save for one (Crysis)? Developers need to give us more of a reason to do that.

It's not a matter of the PC being more powerful than consoles, some of you are missing the point.

Due to the multiplatform trend we're getting a lot of the exact same games as consoles are. Of the PC exclusives, few have the high requirements of, for example, Crysis. Since the "big games" are almost all going multiplatform (most recently being Fallout3) how is it cost effective for a PC gamer to upgrade their PC at this time in order to run games like Crysis smoothly? The consoles can be purchased for close to or cheaper than the upgrades for someone with a system like mine, and factor in that I could rent games for $5 rather than having to buy them for $50 and it becomes even cheaper.

This isn't about hardware so much as it is about the PC gaming industry not ponying up enough incentives to keep up with it. That will certainly change in a couple years when PC's have once again jumped past the consoles, but really from now untilQ2 2009 why would a gamer in my position want to upgrade their PC to run identical games to the consoles, save for one (Crysis)? Developers need to give us more of a reason to do that.

sircyrus

For me, the cost of PC gaming equals the price of my video card. Every other component can be (and is actually) used for other purposes most of the time, which is unlike how a console and an HDTV can hardly be used for anything that doesn't have to do with games and movies.

You have all missed the point! PC Game developers and publishers have decided PC games are no longer profitable. Hence 2006 having the fewest number of PC game releases and with fewer PC AAA titles last year the quality of those PC games that were released were the lowest of any year. Gamespot reviewed only 29 PC games in the 3 months between October 2006 and December 2006 (the important Xmas buying season), no games got 90% and only two got 80%+, the average score of those 29 games was 54%. In 2007 (projected) and 2006 Gamespot awarded only 20 Editor Choice Awards (90%+ games, all formats). In 2002-2005 the average was 40! Twice as many! That tells you something about the lowering of quality generally, but within that PC gaming is the worse.

So the die is cast. Mainsteam PC gamers are moving away from graphically high end but gameplay shallow AAA gaming. They are now refusing to upgrade to play these shallow games and are going back to the deeper gameplay orientated PC games of the past. (Utilities like DOSBox and VDMSound make this much easier than in the past.) This is leading to fewer PC game releases and the downward cycle has no signs of reversing anytime soon. Soon there will not be PC conversions of console titles, because the perception is already that PC games don't make money money, and that is a small step from PC conversions don't make money. At that point, with the exception of maybe the Sims, PC gaming will be exclusively independent publishers selling their games via download or mail order only. The jury is out whether sites like Gamespot would continue to report on PC gaming if it became such a small niche.

The PC you buy this year to play Crysis (if you buy a new PC at all) will be the last needed for PC gaming, because it will easily run any retro games you decide to play or emualte on your PC and there will be very little in the way of PC titles that will push your PC to it's limits. If you want graphically high end AAA titles that have had multi-million dollar development budgets, you will have to look to the consoles. As that's the only place they'll be.

You can use the PC itself for more things than just gaming. Plus the games themselves are cheaper here for PC rather than console. So in the long term i would say it IS quite cost effective dependant on the PC setups personal longevity before upgrades are required.