Let's squash this myth that PC gaming isnt much more expensive than consoles.

Frequent PC sales from D2D, EA Store, Steam, and other digital download stores, tell a different story.

your talking about a card being outdated after 3 years as being a shining example of PC hardware longevity. Realistically you are looking at needing 2 sets of hardware over the lifetime of a single console... at least in the past. You are also gonna need a PCI 2.0 mobo if you plan on upgrading your card from that 8800gt or you might end up gimping your new gpu performance. And maybe you cant find a PCI 2.0 mobo that is compatible with your old memory and chipset... and then you are looking at an entire system upgrade. There are alot of hidden costs that go along with upgrading a single component. Its all these costs that never show up in PC gamer arguments... but anyone who has been PC gaming for a significant period knows they exist and pretend they dont.

these are the costs that really drive up the overal cost of PC gaming.

markinthedark

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not arguing PC's longevity is good, just that it has gotten somewhat better. I simply used the 8800GT as an example that the longevity has increased due to multiplat-centric titles and booming budegtary costs. It's gotten better, but it's not on the same level as consoles, as manufacturers can sell at a loss, buy and manufacture in bulk to lower costs etc. I'm simply saying PC longevity is better than it was in the past, not that it's by any means great when compared to consoles.

I'm a proponent for PC's ranging in price from low-end to high-end, but I also argue the case of upgrades in socket types etc. It's costly, and consts more than consoles initially. Anything after that is moot, as it depends on the end-user.

Did you exclude the cost of all the console games themselves? Console games sell at a higher price than PC games, and thanks to promotions frequently offered by Steam and some others, PC games can become ridiculously cheap. On the other hand, sure a top of the line PC hardware may be expensive, and sure its cost/performance ratio won't be so great, just like a Ferrari compared to a cheap Japanese car.GhoX

The problem with this is it leaves out some of the flexibility of the console market. People can rent console titles, whereas all PC games have to be bought.

Let's say you're interested in a game like God of War 3, but not enough to keep it. You just want to try it out and beat it, but you're still excited to see it. You can drive over to Blockbuster a week after it comes out, pick that up for $9 and return it when you're done with it. Or you could use the new Blockbuster Games By Mail [link] and play through 4 games in one month for $9.

What if there's a new PC game coming out that you just want to try it out and play through it, but not own it? What can you do? Only sit and wait until the game comes down to the price tag you're willing to pay to own it (10 dollars or less). This can take years if it doesn't show up in a Steam holiday sale.

your talking about a card being outdated after 3 years as being a shining example of PC hardware longevity. Realistically you are looking at needing 2 sets of hardware over the lifetime of a single console... at least in the past. You are also gonna need a PCI 2.0 mobo if you plan on upgrading your card from that 8800gt or you might end up gimping your new gpu performance. And maybe you cant find a PCI 2.0 mobo that is compatible with your old memory and chipset... and then you are looking at an entire system upgrade. There are alot of hidden costs that go along with upgrading a single component. Its all these costs that never show up in PC gamer arguments... but anyone who has been PC gaming for a significant period knows they exist and pretend they dont.

these are the costs that really drive up the overal cost of PC gaming.

markinthedark

What you are disregarding however is that had you been sticking at "console quality" (720p, Medium quality, no AA or x2 AA, capped at 30fps) you wouldn't need nearly as great a computer. Hell, you can safely stay in only DX9 without ever bother going for a DX10/11 card.

It's a perfectly viable choice to buy computers with the same performance/price as the consoles, and believe me you will be able to play all Multiplats at console quality or more. The other, more frequent, choice most PC gamers make however is to get a more expensive setup, and that's simply because they prefer to spend more so that they may obtain superior quality.

What if there's a new PC game coming out that you just want to try it out and play through it, but not own it? What can you do? Only sit and wait until the game comes down to the price tag you're willing to pay to own it (10 dollars or less). This can take years if it doesn't show up in a Steam holiday sale.SakusEnvoy

Well, I don't have money problem like that at all.

Steam not only offer holiday sales though, Steam also frequently offers weekend free trial of full games either they are newly released, or they are growing increasingly popular.

Frequent PC sales from D2D, EA Store, Steam, and other digital download stores, tell a different story.

Mystic-G

console games go on sale also... there is no need to complicate things by comparing who has the best bargain hunters.

Here's a repost of what I said in the other thread. Prices quoted slightly below MSRP, tracking a typical budget rig from 2005 and 2010:

"The thing is someone who uses a computer primarily to access the internet wouldn't have to upgrade their rig regularly like a PC gamer would...

Let's say the year is 2005, and you want to build a $650 gaming rig. This would probably have something like a Socket 939 Athlon 64 3000+, Geforce 6600 GT, 512MB of RAM, an 80 GB HDD and a 330W power supply. This is the budget rig recommended by tomshardware in 2005 [link], but they left out the cost of an OS ($99) and case ($49). So now you have a budget gaming rig, but it lacks longevity.

Now the year is 2008. Crysis came out last year and you can't run it -- not even on medium settings. You're missing out on one of PC gaming's finest titles, so it's time to upgrade. By now games are demanding better processors, better graphics cards, more and faster RAM, more hard drive space and better power supplies. Yikes.

Basically your whole rig needs upgrading. You could transfer over your OS, but even your OS is outdated because XP doesn't support DirectX 10. Nonetheless you hold off on getting Vista because it's receiving bad reviews. You try to keep your HDD even though space is filling up fast. But everything else changes. So now you buy the following parts after checking newegg for deals (2008 prices):

CPU: e8400- 170$
RAM: CORSAIR XMS2 DHX 4GB- 75$ after MIR
GPU: radeon 4850- 150$ after MIR
MOBO: Gigabyte ep35-ds3l- 85$
PSU: Antec True Power Trio TP3-650 650W- 70$ after MIR [2008 link]

Now the year is 2010. Unfortunately, games are demanding more and more space and an 80GB hard drive simply cannot do it anymore. So you upgrade to a 1TB hard drive -- cost, about $90. And it's finally time to upgrade the OS because games like Just Cause 2 expect DX10 and you want to get the most out of your rig. So you get a new OS -- cost, about $100.

So assuming you did not sell any parts, how much was spent on this rig over a 5 year period? That's $1,390 dollars for what today is starting to look like an outdated setup."

SakusEnvoy

Wow that is just so far wrong I don't know where to start....

You try to compare apples to oranges. In 2005 a brand new PS3 (well as close to 2005 as you could :P) would set you back $599 USD, about the same as the gaming rig. If you are happy playing a PS3 now then you should still be happy playing on that gaming rig as they would be comparable. Crysis would certainly run, and at medium settings, all while looking as good as a PS3 or 360 trying to run the same program.

An 80GB HDD is fine today, just uninstall some games. In fact, i'm running this computer on a 64GB SSD which I was given to test at work. Sure it's small, but I can download a game from Steam in half an hour and only keep the 6 or 7 games i'm playing at the time installed. My game saves take up no space at all.

Bah there are so many holes in the argument I'm just going to leave it there. Yes, if you want the absolute best of everything a PC has to offer it will cost you. If you just want console level performance it won't.

You also seem to neglect the fact that most people buy a cheap PC for internet use, email, phots etc. Spending that bit more to make that same machine a gaming machine is definately cheaper than a new console + extras. It's all in how you want to see it though. I own the full set because i'm just that into my games and I know the true cost of owning all. For me, the PC is cheapest no matter how you argue it.

I like how consolites automatically assume PC gaming is more expensive because we HAVE to upgrade hardware. I own a 8800GTS, which was released right near the PS3's release date. I run games on higher resolutions and higher settings than consoles do. Go figure. Price ends up breaking even considering the stagging prices between PC and console games during frequent sales and the static $10 price differential that comes with most games.

The problem with this is it leaves out some of the flexibility of the console market. People can rent console titles, whereas all PC games have to be bought.

Let's say you're interested in a game like God of War 3, but not enough to keep it. You just want to try it out and beat it, but you're still excited to see it. You can drive over to Blockbuster a week after it comes out, pick that up for $9 and return it when you're done with it. Or you could use the new Blockbuster Games By Mail [link] and play through 4 games in one month for $9.

What if there's a new PC game coming out that you just want to try it out and play through it, but not own it? What can you do? Only sit and wait until the game comes down to the price tag you're willing to pay to own it (10 dollars or less). This can take years if it doesn't show up in a Steam holiday sale.

SakusEnvoy

That "flexibility" of the console market that is the second hand and renting markets will soon enough turn into the flexibility female Shepard mentions when talking to Garrus in ME2 after he explains the full body sparring on turian ships.

[spoiler] For those who don't get the metaphor, it means the second hand and renting markets are going to get scr00d by companies who will put DRM on console games as soon as it becomes a widely viable solution. [/spoiler]

PC gaming is a bit more expensive, but I am willing to pay for the best.millerlight89

[QUOTE="GhoX"]Did you exclude the cost of all the console games themselves? Console games sell at a higher price than PC games, and thanks to promotions frequently offered by Steam and some others, PC games can become ridiculously cheap. On the other hand, sure a top of the line PC hardware may be expensive, and sure its cost/performance ratio won't be so great, just like a Ferrari compared to a cheap Japanese car.SakusEnvoy

The problem with this is it leaves out some of the flexibility of the console market. People can rent console titles, whereas all PC games have to be bought.

Let's say you're interested in a game like God of War 3, but not enough to keep it. You just want to try it out and beat it, but you're still excited to see it. You can drive over to Blockbuster a week after it comes out, pick that up for $9 and return it when you're done with it. Or you could use the new Blockbuster Games By Mail [link] and play through 4 games in one month for $9.

What if there's a new PC game coming out that you just want to try it out and play through it, but not own it? What can you do? Only sit and wait until the game comes down to the price tag you're willing to pay to own it (10 dollars or less). This can take years if it doesn't show up in a Steam holiday sale.

There are online services that allow you to rent games based on a monthly fee...just like a movie club.

You also seem to forget that you can just download any PC game you like for free. Hey I don't condone it and not is piracy something people should do but if you want games every month for free then you can have them.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]your talking about a card being outdated after 3 years as being a shining example of PC hardware longevity. Realistically you are looking at needing 2 sets of hardware over the lifetime of a single console... at least in the past. You are also gonna need a PCI 2.0 mobo if you plan on upgrading your card from that 8800gt or you might end up gimping your new gpu performance. And maybe you cant find a PCI 2.0 mobo that is compatible with your old memory and chipset... and then you are looking at an entire system upgrade. There are alot of hidden costs that go along with upgrading a single component. Its all these costs that never show up in PC gamer arguments... but anyone who has been PC gaming for a significant period knows they exist and pretend they dont.

these are the costs that really drive up the overal cost of PC gaming.

GhoX

What you are disregarding however is that had you been sticking at "console quality" (720p, Medium quality, no AA or x2 AA, capped at 30fps) you wouldn't need nearly as great a computer. Hell, you can safely stay in only DX9 without ever bother going for a DX10/11 card.

It's a perfectly viable choice to buy computers with the same performance/price as the consoles, and believe me you will be able to play all Multiplats at console quality or more. The other, more frequent, choice most PC gamers make however is to get a more expensive setup, and that's simply because they prefer to spend more so that they may obtain superior quality.

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

markinthedark

Completely unrelated to what he said.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]PC gaming is a bit more expensive, but I am willing to pay for the best.xsubtownerx

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

markinthedark

While your asking him that i'll ask you; How much would it have cost to buy all the consoles released in the past 10 years on launch day? (seeing as to play every new game on a PC you have to upgrade it is only fair that you have to buy every console at launch and full price in this comparison. You can argue this but on Gamespot the PC library stacks up against ALL of the consoles combined).

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

Here's a repost of what I said in the other thread. Prices quoted slightly below MSRP, tracking a typical budget rig from 2005 and 2010:

"The thing is someone who uses a computer primarily to access the internet wouldn't have to upgrade their rig regularly like a PC gamer would...

Let's say the year is 2005, and you want to build a $650 gaming rig. This would probably have something like a Socket 939 Athlon 64 3000+, Geforce 6600 GT, 512MB of RAM, an 80 GB HDD and a 330W power supply. This is the budget rig recommended by tomshardware in 2005 [link], but they left out the cost of an OS ($99) and case ($49). So now you have a budget gaming rig, but it lacks longevity.

Now the year is 2008. Crysis came out last year and you can't run it -- not even on medium settings. You're missing out on one of PC gaming's finest titles, so it's time to upgrade. By now games are demanding better processors, better graphics cards, more and faster RAM, more hard drive space and better power supplies. Yikes.

Basically your whole rig needs upgrading. You could transfer over your OS, but even your OS is outdated because XP doesn't support DirectX 10. Nonetheless you hold off on getting Vista because it's receiving bad reviews. You try to keep your HDD even though space is filling up fast. But everything else changes. So now you buy the following parts after checking newegg for deals (2008 prices):

CPU: e8400- 170$
RAM: CORSAIR XMS2 DHX 4GB- 75$ after MIR
GPU: radeon 4850- 150$ after MIR
MOBO: Gigabyte ep35-ds3l- 85$
PSU: Antec True Power Trio TP3-650 650W- 70$ after MIR [2008 link]

Now the year is 2010. Unfortunately, games are demanding more and more space and an 80GB hard drive simply cannot do it anymore. So you upgrade to a 1TB hard drive -- cost, about $90. And it's finally time to upgrade the OS because games like Just Cause 2 expect DX10 and you want to get the most out of your rig. So you get a new OS -- cost, about $100.

So assuming you did not sell any parts, how much was spent on this rig over a 5 year period? That's $1,390 dollars for what today is starting to look like an outdated setup."

1080pOnly

Wow that is just so far wrong I don't know where to start....

You try to compare apples to oranges. In 2005 a brand new PS3 (well as close to 2005 as you could :P) would set you back $599 USD, about the same as the gaming rig. If you are happy playing a PS3 now then you should still be happy playing on that gaming rig as they would be comparable. Crysis would certainly run, and at medium settings, all while looking as good as a PS3 or 360 trying to run the same program.

An 80GB HDD is fine today, just uninstall some games. In fact, i'm running this computer on a 64GB SSD which I was given to test at work. Sure it's small, but I can download a game from Steam in half an hour and only keep the 6 or 7 games i'm playing at the time installed. My game saves take up no space at all.

Bah there are so many holes in the argument I'm just going to leave it there. Yes, if you want the absolute best of everything a PC has to offer it will cost you. If you just want console level performance it won't.

You also seem to neglect the fact that most people buy a cheap PC for internet use, email, phots etc. Spending that bit more to make that same machine a gaming machine is definately cheaper than a new console + extras. It's all in how you want to see it though. I own the full set because i'm just that into my games and I know the true cost of owning all. For me, the PC is cheapest no matter how you argue it.

This is about PC gaming, not console gaming. If I am PC gaming, you expect to be able to play big PC games. And no, Crysis will not run well on an Athlon 64 3000+ and Geforce 6600 GT. And no, those specs are not comparable to a PS3 or 360's specs.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]PC gaming is a bit more expensive, but I am willing to pay for the best.xsubtownerx

Cars have huge price gaps unlike PC vs console ;) though PC gaming is more expensive with upfront costs, depending on where you live it can be overall cheaper than console gaming.

Who cares you get what you pay for , a top of line PC detroys PS3 and 360 at every technical level of course it's gonna cost more.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]To play Mass Effect 2 on 360 costs 200 + copy of the game for 20 or so. To play it on PC... costs more. I think everyone knows this, it's only the silly fanboy folk who try say it's "cheaper". The reasonable people focusmore on "better value"....Mograine

Silly fanboy folk?

After mentioning the price of one game and one console alone?

Lol. Silly fanboy folk indeed.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

Mograine

Completely unrelated to what he said.

I really dont have a clue as to what he was talking about. As soon as he started nitpicking about me not putting the E in PCIE 2.0 i knew he was just arguing for the sake of arguing and tuned out.

im still waiting to see the cost of a 2005 PC that matches the performance of a $400 xbox 360 in 2005.

Someone show me the cost of PC gaming from 2005-2012....

the cost for console gaming from 2005-2012 is $400-600.

Seems the only person who actually made a very good attempt at pricing that cost came up with over $1300... and that was only 2005-2010.

[QUOTE="GhoX"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]your talking about a card being outdated after 3 years as being a shining example of PC hardware longevity. Realistically you are looking at needing 2 sets of hardware over the lifetime of a single console... at least in the past. You are also gonna need a PCI 2.0 mobo if you plan on upgrading your card from that 8800gt or you might end up gimping your new gpu performance. And maybe you cant find a PCI 2.0 mobo that is compatible with your old memory and chipset... and then you are looking at an entire system upgrade. There are alot of hidden costs that go along with upgrading a single component. Its all these costs that never show up in PC gamer arguments... but anyone who has been PC gaming for a significant period knows they exist and pretend they dont.

these are the costs that really drive up the overal cost of PC gaming.

markinthedark

What you are disregarding however is that had you been sticking at "console quality" (720p, Medium quality, no AA or x2 AA, capped at 30fps) you wouldn't need nearly as great a computer. Hell, you can safely stay in only DX9 without ever bother going for a DX10/11 card.

It's a perfectly viable choice to buy computers with the same performance/price as the consoles, and believe me you will be able to play all Multiplats at console quality or more. The other, more frequent, choice most PC gamers make however is to get a more expensive setup, and that's simply because they prefer to spend more so that they may obtain superior quality.

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="millerlight89"]PC gaming is a bit more expensive, but I am willing to pay for the best.Espada12

Cars don't have huge price gaps like PC vs console ;) though PC gaming is more expensive with upfront costs, depending on where you live it can be overall cheaper than console gaming.

It's factually cheaper to play Mass Effect 2 on a console. Argue if you like, you are incorrect :)locopatho

I hope that was not a serious reply.

If you claim that you like paying -more- for the best, then it should apply to everything you buy. No?xsubtownerx

Lol, wut :lol: ?

[QUOTE="locopatho"] It's factually cheaper to play Mass Effect 2 on a console. Argue if you like, you are incorrect :)Mograine

I'm guessing one would have to build 2 (inexpensive) rigs in the duration of one console generation to be able to play the latest and greatest games on decent settings.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="GhoX"] Buddy, you don't seem to know very much. First of all it is not PCI 2.0, it's PCIE 2.0. That makes a massive difference. Second, there is very little performance difference between PCIE 1 and 2 even when using some of the latest, more powerful cards. Finally, the reason you are claiming all these needs for upgrade is simply due to two reasons: PC exclusives/focused multiplats require more expensive hardware to "max out" or play "on high".

What you are disregarding however is that had you been sticking at "console quality" (720p, Medium quality, no AA or x2 AA, capped at 30fps) you wouldn't need nearly as great a computer. Hell, you can safely stay in only DX9 without ever bother going for a DX10/11 card.

It's a perfectly viable choice to buy computers with the same performance/price as the consoles, and believe me you will be able to play all Multiplats at console quality or more. The other, more frequent, choice most PC gamers make however is to get a more expensive setup, and that's simply because they prefer to spend more so that they may obtain superior quality.

GhoX

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

Are you really calling an E8400 and a Radeon 4850 the "absolute best of everything a PC has to offer"? And I am not neglecting that people buy a cheap PC for internet use, email, photos, etc. And, in fact, I did not even mention consoles whatsoever so I have no idea what you're talking about. I re-posted it to address one thing and one thing alone: the cost of upgrading a budget PC from the time period of 2005 to 2010.

This is about PC gaming, not console gaming. If I am PC gaming, you expect to be able to play big PC games. And no, Crysis will not run well on an Athlon 64 3000+ and Geforce 6600 GT. And no, those specs are not comparable to a PS3 or 360's specs.

SakusEnvoy

Err no, I didn't mention anything about the pinnacle of PC gaming. You are in a thread comparing the price of consoles to PC's, it is fair to assume your post about the expensive upgrade route of the PC was in comparison to consoles.

You also neglect to add that the PC described is nearly 6 years old now AND would have been bought as a budget rig just before the big wave of new cards from nVidia (8x series), a bad time to buy as any PC gamer would tell you. Also that post neglects to mention that PC's are getting cheaper all the time where as consoles are becoming more expensive.

If I have missed your point entirely then i'm sorry but it is nearly 2am here and i'm now done for the night.

Lol, wut :lol: ?

Mograine

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] It's factually cheaper to play Mass Effect 2 on a console. Argue if you like, you are incorrect :)locopatho

Let me get this straight.

You were serious about what you said?

So, your argument is that a person buys only one console and only one game in a whole generation :| ?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="GhoX"] Buddy, you don't seem to know very much. First of all it is not PCI 2.0, it's PCIE 2.0. That makes a massive difference. Second, there is very little performance difference between PCIE 1 and 2 even when using some of the latest, more powerful cards. Finally, the reason you are claiming all these needs for upgrade is simply due to two reasons: PC exclusives/focused multiplats require more expensive hardware to "max out" or play "on high".

What you are disregarding however is that had you been sticking at "console quality" (720p, Medium quality, no AA or x2 AA, capped at 30fps) you wouldn't need nearly as great a computer. Hell, you can safely stay in only DX9 without ever bother going for a DX10/11 card.

It's a perfectly viable choice to buy computers with the same performance/price as the consoles, and believe me you will be able to play all Multiplats at console quality or more. The other, more frequent, choice most PC gamers make however is to get a more expensive setup, and that's simply because they prefer to spend more so that they may obtain superior quality.

GhoX

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

ahh yes, im less knowledgeable because i didnt put the E in PCIE 2.0

forgive me oh master of computer knowledge.

700 rigs from 5 years ago? somehow im doubting that can even come close to matching a 360 on multiplats. Unless you have some elaborate cooling system and are OC'ing the crap out of it.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

[QUOTE="Mograine"]I hope that was not a serious reply.Mograine

Let me get this straight.

You were serious about what you said?

So, your argument is that a person buys only one console and only one game in a whole generation :| ?

>ahh yes, im less knowledgeable because i didnt put the E in PCIE 2.0

forgive me oh master of computer knowledge.

700 rigs from 5 years ago? somehow im doubting that can even come close to matching a 360 on multiplats. Unless you have some elaborate cooling system and are OC'ing the crap out of it.

markinthedark

A $650 rig from 5 years ago would be like the one I mentioned was recommended by tomshardware (at MSRP): a Geforce 6600 GT and an Athlon 64 3000+. While it's true that not everyone needs to play PC games on "max" or "super high resolutions", that rig simply will not do well with the latest multiplats. It just won't.

SakusEnvoy

PC gaming acrues some nasty startup costs.

all there is to say really.

No, my argument is if someone wants to play Mass Effect 2, it is factually cheaper to get it and a 360.locopatho

How is that different from what I said?

[QUOTE="locopatho"] No, my argument is if someone wants to play Mass Effect 2, it is factually cheaper to get it and a 360.Mograine

How is that different from what I said?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

So answer me this, over the past 10 years how much have you spent on PC parts to keep your gaming rig current (not maxing out, just being able to play new releases)? or are you a new PC gamer that doesnt quite understand the actual cost of PC gaming?

1080pOnly

While your asking him that i'll ask you; How much would it have cost to buy all the consoles released in the past 10 years on launch day? (seeing as to play every new game on a PC you have to upgrade it is only fair that you have to buy every console at launch and full price in this comparison. You can argue this but on Gamespot the PC library stacks up against ALL of the consoles combined).

why would you have to buy all the consoles... you can buy one console and play every single new release on that platform.

the problem is if you dont enact the standard of saying the rig neeeds to be able to play new releasesthen you can just say... lolz its cheap to be a pc gamer... ive been playing minesweeper since the 80s on the same rig.

and then someone will say they have been playing an atari 2600 since the 70s.

being a pc or console gamer means being able to play new releases.... playing old ass games on a old ass rig doesnt reflect the cost of pc gaming. This is a thread about the cost of gaming... which means playing new games either on a console, or a pc.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]>ahh yes, im less knowledgeable because i didnt put the E in PCIE 2.0

forgive me oh master of computer knowledge.

700 rigs from 5 years ago? somehow im doubting that can even come close to matching a 360 on multiplats. Unless you have some elaborate cooling system and are OC'ing the crap out of it.

GhoX

no i was talking about upgrading to a new card from an 8800gt.

You are bringing a bunch of other restrictions and arguments. I am stating a fact.locopatho

In other news, the Earth completes a circle around the sun in almost 9k hours A.K.A. 365 days, the water is transparent, trees are made of wood and gold shines.

Great, you stated a fact.

That does not negate anything I said, though. The "bunch of restrictions and arguments" come from YOU, not from ME. I just reworded what you said for a more generalized analysis.

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

Are you really calling an E8400 and a Radeon 4850 the "absolute best of everything a PC has to offer"? And I am not neglecting that people buy a cheap PC for internet use, email, photos, etc. And, in fact, I did not even mention consoles whatsoever so I have no idea what you're talking about. I re-posted it to address one thing and one thing alone: the cost of upgrading a budget PC from the time period of 2005 to 2010.

This is about PC gaming, not console gaming. If I am PC gaming, you expect to be able to play big PC games. And no, Crysis will not run well on an Athlon 64 3000+ and Geforce 6600 GT. And no, those specs are not comparable to a PS3 or 360's specs.

1080pOnly

Err no, I didn't mention anything about the pinnacle of PC gaming. You are in a thread comparing the price of consoles to PC's, it is fair to assume your post about the expensive upgrade route of the PC was in comparison to consoles.

You also neglect to add that the PC described is nearly 6 years old now AND would have been bought as a budget rig just before the big wave of new cards from nVidia (8x series), a bad time to buy as any PC gamer would tell you. Also that post neglects to mention that PC's are getting cheaper all the time where as consoles are becoming more expensive.

If I have missed your point entirely then i'm sorry but it is nearly 2am here and i'm now done for the night.

But anyhow, yes, I agree with your latter point. I'm not sure if consoles will actually repeat the kind of high prices they had earlier this generation in the future, though. I think the high initial prices may result in a longer than usual console generation but that's just speculation. Thankfully PC hardware prices are decreasing, system requirements are going down and it is a good thing for PC gaming.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"] What kind of car do you drive?xsubtownerx

Cars don't have huge price gaps like PC vs console ;) though PC gaming is more expensive with upfront costs, depending on where you live it can be overall cheaper than console gaming.

Not really, the price between a ferrari and a civic is huge, the price between consoles and PC is not that much of a gap.

[QUOTE="locopatho"] You are bringing a bunch of other restrictions and arguments. I am stating a fact.Mograine

In other news, the Earth completes a circle around the sun in almost 9k hours A.K.A. 365 days, the water is transparent, trees are made of wood and gold shines.

Great, you stated a fact.

That does not negate anything I said, though. The "bunch of restrictions and arguments" come from YOU, not from ME. I just reworded what you said for a more generalized analysis.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]>ahh yes, im less knowledgeable because i didnt put the E in PCIE 2.0

forgive me oh master of computer knowledge.

700 rigs from 5 years ago? somehow im doubting that can even come close to matching a 360 on multiplats. Unless you have some elaborate cooling system and are OC'ing the crap out of it.

GhoX

A $650 rig from 5 years ago would be like the one I mentioned was recommended by tomshardware (at MSRP): a Geforce 6600 GT and an Athlon 64 3000+. While it's true that not everyone needs to play PC games on "max" or "super high resolutions", that rig simply will not do well with the latest multiplats. It just won't.

SakusEnvoy

[QUOTE="GhoX"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]>ahh yes, im less knowledgeable because i didnt put the E in PCIE 2.0

forgive me oh master of computer knowledge.

700 rigs from 5 years ago? somehow im doubting that can even come close to matching a 360 on multiplats. Unless you have some elaborate cooling system and are OC'ing the crap out of it.

markinthedark

no i was talking about upgrading to a new card from an 8800gt.

If it's so obvious why are you laughing at me and posting facepalm pics. Agreement, or silence, would have been better options.locopatho

You're the only one who must remain silent here if you really think a person would spill out 360$ to play one game alone and then completely forget about the console.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]If it's so obvious why are you laughing at me and posting facepalm pics. Agreement, or silence, would have been better options.Mograine

You're the only one who must remain silent here if you really think a person would spill out 300$ to play one game alone and then completely forget about it.

I can state a relevant fact if I wish, if your only contribution is to LOL and "facepalm" then I suggest you remain quiet. But I'm sure you don't value my opinion anyway, I'm only a filthy console gamer after all :)locopatho

Respond to my point instead of making a fool of you.

A sane person does not spill out almost four hundred dollars to play one game, no matter how much you try to make it pass as factually cheaper.

[QUOTE="GhoX"]

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]A $650 rig from 5 years ago would be like the one I mentioned was recommended by tomshardware (at MSRP): a Geforce 6600 GT and an Athlon 64 3000+. While it's true that not everyone needs to play PC games on "max" or "super high resolutions", that rig simply will not do well with the latest multiplats. It just won't.

SakusEnvoy

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="GhoX"] No, it was rather your claim that upgrading from a PCIE 1 to 2 was necessary for not hindering the performance of a 8800 that messed up your statement. And yes, a 700 rig from 5 years ago can do quite well compared to 360, but can't pull off as stunning textures as some PS3 multiplats without problems.

GhoX

no i was talking about upgrading to a new card from an 8800gt.

make alot of good points... i see alot of people online asking "is this a good gaming rig?" and they always have like a $500 cpu, and 16gb of ram... and some mediocre $100 video card. To this day when my friends talk about computer performance, they only talk about cpu speed and ram... and dont understand what graphics card do... because there isnt an easy number system for them to understand the performance of it. They only understand that 2ghz is less than 3ghz and 4gb of ram is less than 8gb of ram. I think ive tried to explain various aspects of graphics cards but its usually met with blank stares and they always end up going out on their own and spending $1000+ on PCs that can barely run a game.

on another note i thought cards were maxing out PCIE 1.0 slots these days?

either way, even if you are incredibly savvy i think its safe to say on hardware alone you will probably be spending at least double the cost of a console just to match performance.