@kingtito: I firmly hold faith that such things will be litigated in the court of public opinion. Hey, who knows. I could be way off on my predictions with Scorpio. It's live on the streets now, so theory be damned.
Creative Director on PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Brendan Greene, has taken to Twitter to clarify that the game will run at 30 FPS on all Xbox One consoles at launch. Despite his previous statements, even the Xbox One X will output 30 FPS gameplay. Greene did confirm the team is "exploring options to increase FPS", but has nothing further to add at this time.
I guess the most powerful console ever created can't even come close to a gaming PC :(
Define a "gaming" PC and it's cost.
A $700-800 PC could easily push better fps than the XBX1.
But the point of PC gaming is that for a little more (like a $1500 build), you can get something that runs games at a stable 60 fps (even 144 fps) at max graphics settings and 4k.
Consoles are only good value when compared to budget PCs.
So a PC for an extra $200-300 can push better frames, and as a PC guy that the OP claims to be would know what the X can and can't do, and yet created a stupid thread because of his insecurities over the X, it's sad and pathetic hopefully he can get over it :)
Oh right, so your original Xbox One was what £350? (or dollar equivalent). and you've upgraded to an Xbox One X for £450 , a massive £800... for the same console.. upgraded.... I suppose you could trade in, but if its a base XBOX One.. you probably got 100-125 if that.
This game at 30 FPS for a £450 console is depressing, its that simple, the amount of deflection in this thread just shows it hits home quite heavy.
People purchasing an Xbox One X for the premium price of £450 are not getting anywhere close to the same bang for your buck as a £700 PC, I would love to pose that challenge to Xbox fans.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
Ultra settings make that game harder sadly.
It's one of those s*itty games designed that less foliage appears on lower settings... so most "hardcore" players play the game at PS2 level graphics to kill people who think they are safe in bushes.
That alone killed any of my interest in the game, such a fundamentally pathetic oversight.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
Ultra settings make that game harder sadly.
It's one of those s*itty games designed that less foliage appears on lower settings... so most "hardcore" players play the game at PS2 level graphics to kill people who think they are safe in bushes.
That alone killed any of my interest in the game, such a fundamentally pathetic oversight.
Oh wow that does seem messed up. I wonder if that's how the community as a whole prefers it. Might as well just remove bushes.
Creative Director on PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Brendan Greene, has taken to Twitter to clarify that the game will run at 30 FPS on all Xbox One consoles at launch. Despite his previous statements, even the Xbox One X will output 30 FPS gameplay. Greene did confirm the team is "exploring options to increase FPS", but has nothing further to add at this time.
I guess the most powerful console ever created can't even come close to a gaming PC :(
Define a "gaming" PC and it's cost.
That PC is NOT going to play PUBG at 60fps, I can promise you that.
How many of you here have even played this game on PC? This is a very poorly optimized game. People with 1070/1080/it have trouble getting a stable 60fps, so that is certainly not going to cut it.
Honestly, that's a piss poor build. Nobody shouldn't be using AMD FX CPU in this day & age. If your gonna build a PC, do it right and never go dirt cheap!
Exactly what I thought when I saw this post. I'll tell anyone who asks me, if you only have $500 - $600 to spend, forget building a PC. Buy a console, they're actually good value for money and then take your significant other out to a fancy restaurant with the change.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
Ultra settings make that game harder sadly.
It's one of those s*itty games designed that less foliage appears on lower settings... so most "hardcore" players play the game at PS2 level graphics to kill people who think they are safe in bushes.
That alone killed any of my interest in the game, such a fundamentally pathetic oversight.
That's the type of thing that wrecks my head with multiplayer PC gaming. The knowledge that unless I am on the most powerful hardware and/or know tricks like that, I'm literally playing a different game and my outcomes can be much better or worse due to no fault of my own.
Of course all the options and tweaking and bespoke performance is terrific in single player PC games. But it just doesn't sit well with me in multiplayer.
Everybody in sports is no equal, does not have the same access to the same level of equipment to train/quality of life.
People are not born equal.
Video games aren't sports equipment or people. They are artificial constructs that we CAN make equal, easily. And most gamers seem to want that.
Are you OK with pay to win in Star Wars?
@MBirdy88 said:
It doesn't matter anyway
It does to me, thanks. After briefly playing multiplayer on PC, I went back to consoles for Titanfall II and Overwatch, etc. Prefer the level playing field there.
PC still great for single player though, before you get all autistic "PC master race" at me ;)
@Enragedhydra: I'm a PC enthusiast and have been building since 1990, would I buy another console? Would I f*ck, my PS4 has had one outing in two years. However, that PC you posted is a pile of dung that I wouldn't give it to my 78 year old mother and complete waste of good money. This is a gaming related discussion on a gaming forum, it doesn't matter how well you can Facebook on it, it's not a gaming PC.
Give me a grand and I'll get you something close to a proper gaming PC, and you better give me at least another $300 dollars if you want a screen.
Look isn't the same as a generation ahead. No one said it was a generation ahead but fact is it's significantly more powerful. But saying it's going look isn't the same as saying it IS a generation ahead.
So you're right it didn't take long to debunk cowgenja's theory.
I thought you'd say that. So let me ask, how does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Also don't forget the countless posts, charts, and threads from Ron claiming the Xbox One X would be as powerful as a gtx 1070/1080.
So you're trying to argue it's the same thing? Saying something "looks a gen ahead" is the same thing as BEING a gen ahead? Come on cow_epyon...your bias is showing
My bias for what? I'll ask again. How does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Even easier. Can a game look a generation ahead of the Xbox One X on PS4 Pro?
Looks isn't the same as being. Just look at Horizon. Some cows are saying nothing can touch it, not even on PC. Would you not say they're implying it's a generation ahead? So again, is saying something looks a gen ahead the same as the hardware BEING a gen ahead?
Your bias against the X1X or MS in general. It's clearly showing
Creative Director on PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Brendan Greene, has taken to Twitter to clarify that the game will run at 30 FPS on all Xbox One consoles at launch. Despite his previous statements, even the Xbox One X will output 30 FPS gameplay. Greene did confirm the team is "exploring options to increase FPS", but has nothing further to add at this time.
I guess the most powerful console ever created can't even come close to a gaming PC :(
Define a "gaming" PC and it's cost.
That's great and all, but you end up with a bunch of used hardware at a higher cost than the Xbox One X. What you spec'd there also can't run anything in 4k, so while yes you can play PUGB at 60fps at 1080p, that's not because of the hardware, but because the software isn't locked on PC like it is on consoles.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
Ultra settings make that game harder sadly.
It's one of those s*itty games designed that less foliage appears on lower settings... so most "hardcore" players play the game at PS2 level graphics to kill people who think they are safe in bushes.
That alone killed any of my interest in the game, such a fundamentally pathetic oversight.
That's the type of thing that wrecks my head with multiplayer PC gaming. The knowledge that unless I am on the most powerful hardware and/or know tricks like that, I'm literally playing a different game and my outcomes can be much better or worse due to no fault of my own.
Of course all the options and tweaking and bespoke performance is terrific in single player PC games. But it just doesn't sit well with me in multiplayer.
To be fair, that is poor design on their behalf, for all I know it could of been patched months ago.
But really, there is no excuse, I'm sure framerate may make a *small* difference... but as long as someone is playing at 40-144 FPS .... chances are it comes 95% down to player skill.
Everybody in sports is no equal, does not have the same access to the same level of equipment to train/quality of life.
People are not born equal.
Video games aren't sports equipment or people. They are artificial constructs that we CAN make equal, easily. And most gamers seem to want that.
Are you OK with pay to win in Star Wars?
@MBirdy88 said:
It doesn't matter anyway
It does to me, thanks. After briefly playing multiplayer on PC, I went back to consoles for Titanfall II and Overwatch, etc. Prefer the level playing field there.
PC still great for single player though, before you get all autistic "PC master race" at me ;)
trust me, chances are you are looking for reasons as to why you were beat. barely anybody on PC unless they are on ancient hardware with sub 30 FPS moan about playing field.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
Ultra settings make that game harder sadly.
It's one of those s*itty games designed that less foliage appears on lower settings... so most "hardcore" players play the game at PS2 level graphics to kill people who think they are safe in bushes.
That alone killed any of my interest in the game, such a fundamentally pathetic oversight.
That's the type of thing that wrecks my head with multiplayer PC gaming. The knowledge that unless I am on the most powerful hardware and/or know tricks like that, I'm literally playing a different game and my outcomes can be much better or worse due to no fault of my own.
Of course all the options and tweaking and bespoke performance is terrific in single player PC games. But it just doesn't sit well with me in multiplayer.
For a competitive game, I think I prefer a forced level playing field of locked 30fps rather than the varied framerates different PCs get, with the richest gamers getting the smoothest experience and an easier time of killing poorer gamers with lesser PCs. I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
Of course, best of both worlds would be locked 60fps on consoles, but we can't always get everything we want :D
That's not entirely true. If you want better frames on PC to get an advantage, then turn some settings down. Ultra quality is not necessary for every game. I think most PC gamers, with expensive rigs or not, would hate being forced into a certain performance target.
Ultra settings make that game harder sadly.
It's one of those s*itty games designed that less foliage appears on lower settings... so most "hardcore" players play the game at PS2 level graphics to kill people who think they are safe in bushes.
That alone killed any of my interest in the game, such a fundamentally pathetic oversight.
Oh wow that does seem messed up. I wonder if that's how the community as a whole prefers it. Might as well just remove bushes.
Bushes stay on lowest settings, but the shadows are much lesser, and grass seems a little sparser. They do need to change it so lower settings don't automatically equal better vision, but at this point, it is better to run the lowest settings as I said earlier.
Look isn't the same as a generation ahead. No one said it was a generation ahead but fact is it's significantly more powerful. But saying it's going look isn't the same as saying it IS a generation ahead.
So you're right it didn't take long to debunk cowgenja's theory.
I thought you'd say that. So let me ask, how does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Also don't forget the countless posts, charts, and threads from Ron claiming the Xbox One X would be as powerful as a gtx 1070/1080.
So you're trying to argue it's the same thing? Saying something "looks a gen ahead" is the same thing as BEING a gen ahead? Come on cow_epyon...your bias is showing
My bias for what? I'll ask again. How does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Even easier. Can a game look a generation ahead of the Xbox One X on PS4 Pro?
Looks isn't the same as being. Just look at Horizon. Some cows are saying nothing can touch it, not even on PC. Would you not say they're implying it's a generation ahead? So again, is saying something looks a gen ahead the same as the hardware BEING a gen ahead?
Your bias against the X1X or MS in general. It's clearly showing
What? If anything I'm agreeing with you. Xbox One X is not a generational leap. But you said no one has said that. Meanwhile I gave you a quote and referred to Ron's 1070/1080 posts. How does that show a bias? You're starting to not make sense.
Good lord, a quick glimpse at SW threads and Xbox One X is what these forums are paying attention to. No one is talking about the PS4 Pro anymore. Last time I checked the Xbox One X is being advertised as the most powerful “console” and not system. I always LOL whenever someone especially a Sony fan wants to compare console vs console but can’t ever stick to their console vs console argument because they need the PC in the mix.
And when you do compare Xbox with PC, it’s so weird they automatically think every PC will run games shared on Xbox One X better and with the same performance across every PC LOL. It’s funny as hell when someone attempts to piece together parts to build a gaming PC as they try to stay close to the Xbox One X specs and price, but fails. Included options like a game pad, 4K drive, audio options and other features are missing because it would increase that Frankenstein looking PC lol. I bet a good number of PC gamers in here have disgusting looking PCs and set ups. Yes some of them have nice looking PCs and set ups but more console gamers especially Xbox One X owners will have nicer set ups because these consoles are the focus for entertainment centers in living rooms while PC systems are better suited on a desk in office and bedrooms.
That’s why comparing PC to consoles just doesn’t work in many cases and it’s pointless because it all comes down to preference. It’s just an interesting find that there are people in these forums who are oblivious or just ignorant to the fact that there are console only gamers and gamers who prefer gaming on consoles only. Anyway what’s the FPS for the Pro and Switch for this?
Creative Director on PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Brendan Greene, has taken to Twitter to clarify that the game will run at 30 FPS on all Xbox One consoles at launch. Despite his previous statements, even the Xbox One X will output 30 FPS gameplay. Greene did confirm the team is "exploring options to increase FPS", but has nothing further to add at this time.
I guess the most powerful console ever created can't even come close to a gaming PC :(
Define a "gaming" PC and it's cost.
A $700-800 PC could easily push better fps than the XBX1.
But the point of PC gaming is that for a little more (like a $1500 build), you can get something that runs games at a stable 60 fps (even 144 fps) at max graphics settings and 4k.
Consoles are only good value when compared to budget PCs.
So a PC for an extra $200-300 can push better frames, and as a PC guy that the OP claims to be would know what the X can and can't do, and yet created a stupid thread because of his insecurities over the X, it's sad and pathetic hopefully he can get over it :)
Oh right, so your original Xbox One was what £350? (or dollar equivalent). and you've upgraded to an Xbox One X for £450 , a massive £800... for the same console.. upgraded.... I suppose you could trade in, but if its a base XBOX One.. you probably got 100-125 if that.
This game at 30 FPS for a £450 console is depressing, its that simple, the amount of deflection in this thread just shows it hits home quite heavy.
People purchasing an Xbox One X for the premium price of £450 are not getting anywhere close to the same bang for your buck as a £700 PC, I would love to pose that challenge to Xbox fans.
Why are we talking about the cost of an XB1 when it's about the X. If we're going to do that to jack up the cost, well then we need to add the cost of your PC that you constantly upgrade since 2013, but by doing that we're straying away from the original question probably because the answer is no.
As for the last part, well that seems crazy that something that cost more can do more, what is this black magic or something lol.
I thought you'd say that. So let me ask, how does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Also don't forget the countless posts, charts, and threads from Ron claiming the Xbox One X would be as powerful as a gtx 1070/1080.
So you're trying to argue it's the same thing? Saying something "looks a gen ahead" is the same thing as BEING a gen ahead? Come on cow_epyon...your bias is showing
My bias for what? I'll ask again. How does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Even easier. Can a game look a generation ahead of the Xbox One X on PS4 Pro?
Looks isn't the same as being. Just look at Horizon. Some cows are saying nothing can touch it, not even on PC. Would you not say they're implying it's a generation ahead? So again, is saying something looks a gen ahead the same as the hardware BEING a gen ahead?
Your bias against the X1X or MS in general. It's clearly showing
What? If anything I'm agreeing with you. Xbox One X is not a generational leap. But you said no one has said that. Meanwhile I gave you a quote and referred to Ron's 1070/1080 posts. How does that show a bias? You're starting to not make sense.
The quote doesn't show anything of the sort. Comparing it to a 1070 isn't saying it's a gen ahead and he's referencing in terms of performance. I don't recall Ron saying the X1X is a generation ahead....though I don't actually read his post. Still no one is saying otherwise. No one claimed it's a generation ahead
@i_p_daily: We are discussing quality and not cost. PC is 60fps+ and X1X is 30fps. X1X=shit.
But quality cost money, that's the point you can't get your head around.
Would a PC put together that cost the same as the X be able to get 60fps, it's a simple question that you won't answer will you bass?
@UssjTrunks said:
A $700-800 PC could easily push better fps than the XBX1.
But the point of PC gaming is that for a little more (like a $1500 build), you can get something that runs games at a stable 60 fps (even 144 fps) at max graphics settings and 4k.
Consoles are only good value when compared to budget PCs.
So a PC for an extra $200-300 can push better frames, and as a PC guy that the OP claims to be would know what the X can and can't do, and yet created a stupid thread because of his insecurities over the X, it's sad and pathetic hopefully he can get over it :)
Oh right, so your original Xbox One was what £350? (or dollar equivalent). and you've upgraded to an Xbox One X for £450 , a massive £800... for the same console.. upgraded.... I suppose you could trade in, but if its a base XBOX One.. you probably got 100-125 if that.
This game at 30 FPS for a £450 console is depressing, its that simple, the amount of deflection in this thread just shows it hits home quite heavy.
People purchasing an Xbox One X for the premium price of £450 are not getting anywhere close to the same bang for your buck as a £700 PC, I would love to pose that challenge to Xbox fans.
Why are we talking about the cost of an XB1 when it's about the X. If we're going to do that to jack up the cost, well then we need to add the cost of your PC that you constantly upgrade since 2013, but by doing that we're straying away from the original question probably because the answer is no.
As for the last part, well that seems crazy that something that cost more can do more, what is this black magic or something lol.
Lets be honest, we are not on about first time Xbox One X buyers here are we? we are talking about most of the Xbox guys on here, like yourself, that HAD Xbox Ones before upgrading and defending this luke warm release.
So yea, I'm adding them up, just as some of the posts above are suggest we buy whole new computers (why?) I was just playing devils advocate on that front, but it fits this forum's users just fine in practice.
The last part - £700 PC has access to a far great library, an open platform with far more features - that is where the bang for your buck comes in.
My GTX 970 for example is nearly 4 years old (fitting in quite nicely with console timings). Plays any game at 1080p 60 FPS (Alot of the great MP games at 100-144FPS), plays *most* 1440p games at 40-60 FPS.
So, now when we talk about "bang for your buck" on a more equal playing field, a £450 GTX 1080 can play 1440P Ultra-Wide at 60+ FPS on benchmark games, and a good 40-60 FPS in 4k (non wide) games at 40-60 FPS in benchmark games - that still slams the XBOX1.
So you're trying to argue it's the same thing? Saying something "looks a gen ahead" is the same thing as BEING a gen ahead? Come on cow_epyon...your bias is showing
My bias for what? I'll ask again. How does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Even easier. Can a game look a generation ahead of the Xbox One X on PS4 Pro?
Looks isn't the same as being. Just look at Horizon. Some cows are saying nothing can touch it, not even on PC. Would you not say they're implying it's a generation ahead? So again, is saying something looks a gen ahead the same as the hardware BEING a gen ahead?
Your bias against the X1X or MS in general. It's clearly showing
What? If anything I'm agreeing with you. Xbox One X is not a generational leap. But you said no one has said that. Meanwhile I gave you a quote and referred to Ron's 1070/1080 posts. How does that show a bias? You're starting to not make sense.
The quote doesn't show anything of the sort. Comparing it to a 1070 isn't saying it's a gen ahead and he's referencing in terms of performance. I don't recall Ron saying the X1X is a generation ahead....though I don't actually read his post. Still no one is saying otherwise. No one claimed it's a generation ahead
Dude, you can argue about the quote if you want, but Ron claiming that the X had ryzen and vega parts, that it competed with a GTX 1070/1080 were most certainly him saying it was a generation ahead. Consoles are barely past an RX 480.
My bias for what? I'll ask again. How does a game look a generation ahead on hardware that isn't? Can the PS3 make a game look as good as a PS4? Or a 360 game as good as an Xbox One game?
Even easier. Can a game look a generation ahead of the Xbox One X on PS4 Pro?
Looks isn't the same as being. Just look at Horizon. Some cows are saying nothing can touch it, not even on PC. Would you not say they're implying it's a generation ahead? So again, is saying something looks a gen ahead the same as the hardware BEING a gen ahead?
Your bias against the X1X or MS in general. It's clearly showing
What? If anything I'm agreeing with you. Xbox One X is not a generational leap. But you said no one has said that. Meanwhile I gave you a quote and referred to Ron's 1070/1080 posts. How does that show a bias? You're starting to not make sense.
The quote doesn't show anything of the sort. Comparing it to a 1070 isn't saying it's a gen ahead and he's referencing in terms of performance. I don't recall Ron saying the X1X is a generation ahead....though I don't actually read his post. Still no one is saying otherwise. No one claimed it's a generation ahead
Dude, you can argue about the quote if you want, but Ron claiming that the X had ryzen and vega parts, that it competed with a GTX 1070/1080 were most certainly him saying it was a generation ahead. Consoles are barely past an RX 480.
Now wasn't that prior to the X1X release when EVERYTHING was speculation? Stating that it can compete with the 1070 isn't calling it next gen. A bit delusional but face facts, no one called the X1X next gen. It is and has always been referred to as a mid gen refresh just like the Pro.
Some of your DF articles would disagree about the performance being that of a RX480
Total comes to $567.15 including shipping, this will run PubG at at least 60 FPS. Now go sit down in your desk.
That PC is NOT going to play PUBG at 60fps, I can promise you that.
How many of you here have even played this game on PC? This is a very poorly optimized game. People with 1070/1080/it have trouble getting a stable 60fps, so that is certainly not going to cut it.
Honestly, that's a piss poor build. Nobody shouldn't be using AMD FX CPU in this day & age. If your gonna build a PC, do it right and never go dirt cheap!
Exactly what I thought when I saw this post. I'll tell anyone who asks me, if you only have $500 - $600 to spend, forget building a PC. Buy a console, they're actually good value for money and then take your significant other out to a fancy restaurant with the change.
You are ignoring all the other benefits. Even a $600 PC gets you much better value for your money. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves or grossly misinformed.
I wouldn't wish upon my worse enemy to game on that $600 piece of shit computer you pieced together. No real gamer would ever purchase those parts as new today and make a build out of it. Using a hunk of shit P/S, old ass motherboard, old ass RAM, and an old ass CPU.
Hell when it came to upgrading that PoS you built you would just slide the video card out and slide it in a new computer. Hell even a 970 is getting to be old news now.
@BassMan: yes like buying Logitech speakers and calling yourself bassman.
Honestly, those Logitech Z-5500 are probably the best bang for the buck speakers I have ever bought and they have served me well for many years. The sound quality is respectable and they are easy to hook up to PC and consoles without requiring a separate AVR. I don't use them much these days though. I have the M-Audio BX8 D2 as my main stereo speakers on the PC. I only use the Logitechs to occasionally play a game at the desk without headphones. My PC is also connected to the living room where I have a combination of ELAC, Klipsch and Polk Audio speakers. I have also bought speakers for my home and cars from other brands including Kicker, Rockford Fosgate, Alpine, Paradigm, Sony, and Pioneer. So yeah....
@i_p_daily: We are discussing quality and not cost. PC is 60fps+ and X1X is 30fps. X1X=shit.
But quality cost money, that's the point you can't get your head around.
Would a PC put together that cost the same as the X be able to get 60fps, it's a simple question that you won't answer will you bass?
@UssjTrunks said:
A $700-800 PC could easily push better fps than the XBX1.
But the point of PC gaming is that for a little more (like a $1500 build), you can get something that runs games at a stable 60 fps (even 144 fps) at max graphics settings and 4k.
Consoles are only good value when compared to budget PCs.
So a PC for an extra $200-300 can push better frames, and as a PC guy that the OP claims to be would know what the X can and can't do, and yet created a stupid thread because of his insecurities over the X, it's sad and pathetic hopefully he can get over it :)
Oh right, so your original Xbox One was what £350? (or dollar equivalent). and you've upgraded to an Xbox One X for £450 , a massive £800... for the same console.. upgraded.... I suppose you could trade in, but if its a base XBOX One.. you probably got 100-125 if that.
This game at 30 FPS for a £450 console is depressing, its that simple, the amount of deflection in this thread just shows it hits home quite heavy.
People purchasing an Xbox One X for the premium price of £450 are not getting anywhere close to the same bang for your buck as a £700 PC, I would love to pose that challenge to Xbox fans.
Why are we talking about the cost of an XB1 when it's about the X. If we're going to do that to jack up the cost, well then we need to add the cost of your PC that you constantly upgrade since 2013, but by doing that we're straying away from the original question probably because the answer is no.
As for the last part, well that seems crazy that something that cost more can do more, what is this black magic or something lol.
Lets be honest, we are not on about first time Xbox One X buyers here are we? we are talking about most of the Xbox guys on here, like yourself, that HAD Xbox Ones before upgrading and defending this luke warm release.
So yea, I'm adding them up, just as some of the posts above are suggest we buy whole new computers (why?) I was just playing devils advocate on that front, but it fits this forum's users just fine in practice.
The last part - £700 PC has access to a far great library, an open platform with far more features - that is where the bang for your buck comes in.
My GTX 970 for example is nearly 4 years old (fitting in quite nicely with console timings). Plays any game at 1080p 60 FPS (Alot of the great MP games at 100-144FPS), plays *most* 1440p games at 40-60 FPS.
So, now when we talk about "bang for your buck" on a more equal playing field, a £450 GTX 1080 can play 1440P Ultra-Wide at 60+ FPS on benchmark games, and a good 40-60 FPS in 4k (non wide) games at 40-60 FPS in benchmark games - that still slams the XBOX1.
You keep harping on the same thing and trying to change the narrative. I asked if a PC that cost the same as the X do 60fps in PUBG. It's a simple question easily answered by the hermits, but the fact that we need to add in extra stuff tells me what I needed to know.
@gago-gago: well thought out post, you pretty much nailed my opinion on the subject
Some of the usual suspects are going around spreading bullshit, no one i can recall called the xb1x a generation ahead, i have seen people call the switch a gen ahead due to its uniquess.
Looks isn't the same as being. Just look at Horizon. Some cows are saying nothing can touch it, not even on PC. Would you not say they're implying it's a generation ahead? So again, is saying something looks a gen ahead the same as the hardware BEING a gen ahead?
Your bias against the X1X or MS in general. It's clearly showing
What? If anything I'm agreeing with you. Xbox One X is not a generational leap. But you said no one has said that. Meanwhile I gave you a quote and referred to Ron's 1070/1080 posts. How does that show a bias? You're starting to not make sense.
The quote doesn't show anything of the sort. Comparing it to a 1070 isn't saying it's a gen ahead and he's referencing in terms of performance. I don't recall Ron saying the X1X is a generation ahead....though I don't actually read his post. Still no one is saying otherwise. No one claimed it's a generation ahead
Dude, you can argue about the quote if you want, but Ron claiming that the X had ryzen and vega parts, that it competed with a GTX 1070/1080 were most certainly him saying it was a generation ahead. Consoles are barely past an RX 480.
Now wasn't that prior to the X1X release when EVERYTHING was speculation? Stating that it can compete with the 1070 isn't calling it next gen. A bit delusional but face facts, no one called the X1X next gen. It is and has always been referred to as a mid gen refresh just like the Pro.
Some of your DF articles would disagree about the performance being that of a RX480
If only. He's still doing it to this day. Look at the lounge! It's his thread, post specs reveal trying to say that X1X has vega parts. There's no console system that can compete with a 1070. A system that can would be a generational leap over current gen systems because a 1070 can actually produce 4K/30 and 4K/60 games more consistently. Especially at mid to high pc settings. Look at fortnite. It runs at above 30fps at 4K and at full Epic settings while the X runs it at 1728p with drops to the 20's. A 1070 equivalent console would have beat that and then some. And with settings peeled back a bit, it could have been 60fps as well. That's a generational leap. That's what's implied when the comparison is made. That was the point of that quote.
@i_p_daily: I've said many times that you get what you pay for. If you want quality, you have to pay for it. I do not recommend budget PCs just like I do not recommend an X1X. I am not concerned about cost. I will pay what I need to get the quality that satisfies me.
X1X is a fail just like the other consoles. Seriously... going into 2018 and not a single console can meet the 60fps standard with all games. Not even the "premium product" "most powerful console ever". Pathetic.
And what I paid for the X satisfies me, it has nothing to do with resolution/fps, because I play games not specs. The best racing game that's been released in the last 5yrs was built for console at 30fps, so much for a "60fps standard" BS.
Light side still waiting for you brother, ditch the dark side xD
But I am on the light side, and don't want to join the dark side, well the dark brown side.
@i_p_daily: I've said many times that you get what you pay for. If you want quality, you have to pay for it. I do not recommend budget PCs just like I do not recommend an X1X. I am not concerned about cost. I will pay what I need to get the quality that satisfies me.
X1X is a fail just like the other consoles. Seriously... going into 2018 and not a single console can meet the 60fps standard with all games. Not even the "premium product" "most powerful console ever". Pathetic.
And what I paid for the X satisfies me, it has nothing to do with resolution/fps, because I play games not specs. The best racing game that's been released in the last 5yrs was built for console at 30fps, so much for a "60fps standard" BS.
Light side still waiting for you brother, ditch the dark side xD
But I am on the light side, and don't want to join the dark side, well the dark brown side.
There's no real visual advantage to reducing settings now because they patched it a while back. People continue to play on low for fps gains only. It's simply poorly optimised right now and nigh on impossible to not get drops, no matter how powerful a PC you have or the resolution you play at. Hopefully the big December update improves things.
What? If anything I'm agreeing with you. Xbox One X is not a generational leap. But you said no one has said that. Meanwhile I gave you a quote and referred to Ron's 1070/1080 posts. How does that show a bias? You're starting to not make sense.
The quote doesn't show anything of the sort. Comparing it to a 1070 isn't saying it's a gen ahead and he's referencing in terms of performance. I don't recall Ron saying the X1X is a generation ahead....though I don't actually read his post. Still no one is saying otherwise. No one claimed it's a generation ahead
Dude, you can argue about the quote if you want, but Ron claiming that the X had ryzen and vega parts, that it competed with a GTX 1070/1080 were most certainly him saying it was a generation ahead. Consoles are barely past an RX 480.
Now wasn't that prior to the X1X release when EVERYTHING was speculation? Stating that it can compete with the 1070 isn't calling it next gen. A bit delusional but face facts, no one called the X1X next gen. It is and has always been referred to as a mid gen refresh just like the Pro.
Some of your DF articles would disagree about the performance being that of a RX480
If only. He's still doing it to this day. Look at the lounge! It's his thread, post specs reveal trying to say that X1X has vega parts. There's no console system that can compete with a 1070. A system that can would be a generational leap over current gen systems because a 1070 can actually produce 4K/30 and 4K/60 games more consistently. Especially at mid to high pc settings. Look at fortnite. It runs at above 30fps at 4K and at full Epic settings while the X runs it at 1728p with drops to the 20's. A 1070 equivalent console would have beat that and then some. And with settings peeled back a bit, it could have been 60fps as well. That's a generational leap. That's what's implied when the comparison is made. That was the point of that quote.
1 delusional person =/= lems or even make credible to say people were calling the X1X next gen. Still comparing to a 1070 isn't the same as calling something next gen, implied or not. You are shew are saying people( as in plural) were calling the X1X a next gen device that is plainly false. Comparisons aren't the same thing as flat out calling it next gen.
Creative Director on PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, Brendan Greene, has taken to Twitter to clarify that the game will run at 30 FPS on all Xbox One consoles at launch. Despite his previous statements, even the Xbox One X will output 30 FPS gameplay. Greene did confirm the team is "exploring options to increase FPS", but has nothing further to add at this time.
I guess the most powerful console ever created can't even come close to a gaming PC :(
Define a "gaming" PC and it's cost.
60FPS.... $500 and up wards.
A gaming PC is a PC with a dedicated GPU that must be able to get 60FPS at 1080p on at least medium settings minimum. Console's are chasing resolution as its all that matter sacrificing framerate.
Framerate
Resolution
Settings
That's how PC gamers set their games. But consoles and their brain dead developers have it as...
Settings
Resolution
Framerate
S***'s backwards. No matter how power the console is its a POS gaming experience since 70-90% of games run at 30FPS.
If you gave me a PC with the same specifications as a X1X do you know what I would do with it?...
Ahh, seems like only yesterday that Lems were proclaiming that PS4 was a generation behind when Scorpio comes out.
You don't have to lie to kick it cowgenja. No one seriously said the X1X was a generation ahead. It's significantly more powerful though. Poor optimization by devs isn't a valid reason for shit talking by you cows.
There will be a huge difference between Scorpio and Pro.
The difference between PS4 and Xbox One is minute compared to the difference between Scorpio and Pro. Scorpio will be Significantly Superior to Pro in every facet and games that take advantage of Scorpio will look a generation ahead of Pro games.
...
@Zero_epyon
I'll tell you the same thing I told Tormy, it's Hyperbole and fun. It's no different than saying the Xbox One has no games.
My point was that the difference between Pro and XB1X should be fairly noticeable if Devs customize their game for XB1X.
I remember in 2013 when some were trying to say that the PS4 games looked a generation ahead of XB1 games. That was Hyperbole just like my Statement was.
Ahh, seems like only yesterday that Lems were proclaiming that PS4 was a generation behind when Scorpio comes out.
You don't have to lie to kick it cowgenja. No one seriously said the X1X was a generation ahead. It's significantly more powerful though. Poor optimization by devs isn't a valid reason for shit talking by you cows.
There will be a huge difference between Scorpio and Pro.
The difference between PS4 and Xbox One is minute compared to the difference between Scorpio and Pro. Scorpio will be Significantly Superior to Pro in every facet and games that take advantage of Scorpio will look a generation ahead of Pro games.
...
@Zero_epyon
I'll tell you the same thing I told Tormy, it's Hyperbole and fun. It's no different than saying the Xbox One has no games.
My point was that the difference between Pro and XB1X should be fairly noticeable if Devs customize their game for XB1X.
I remember in 2013 when some were trying to say that the PS4 games looked a generation ahead of XB1 games. That was Hyperbole just like my Statement was.
But quality cost money, that's the point you can't get your head around.
Would a PC put together that cost the same as the X be able to get 60fps, it's a simple question that you won't answer will you bass?
So a PC for an extra $200-300 can push better frames, and as a PC guy that the OP claims to be would know what the X can and can't do, and yet created a stupid thread because of his insecurities over the X, it's sad and pathetic hopefully he can get over it :)
Oh right, so your original Xbox One was what £350? (or dollar equivalent). and you've upgraded to an Xbox One X for £450 , a massive £800... for the same console.. upgraded.... I suppose you could trade in, but if its a base XBOX One.. you probably got 100-125 if that.
This game at 30 FPS for a £450 console is depressing, its that simple, the amount of deflection in this thread just shows it hits home quite heavy.
People purchasing an Xbox One X for the premium price of £450 are not getting anywhere close to the same bang for your buck as a £700 PC, I would love to pose that challenge to Xbox fans.
Why are we talking about the cost of an XB1 when it's about the X. If we're going to do that to jack up the cost, well then we need to add the cost of your PC that you constantly upgrade since 2013, but by doing that we're straying away from the original question probably because the answer is no.
As for the last part, well that seems crazy that something that cost more can do more, what is this black magic or something lol.
Lets be honest, we are not on about first time Xbox One X buyers here are we? we are talking about most of the Xbox guys on here, like yourself, that HAD Xbox Ones before upgrading and defending this luke warm release.
So yea, I'm adding them up, just as some of the posts above are suggest we buy whole new computers (why?) I was just playing devils advocate on that front, but it fits this forum's users just fine in practice.
The last part - £700 PC has access to a far great library, an open platform with far more features - that is where the bang for your buck comes in.
My GTX 970 for example is nearly 4 years old (fitting in quite nicely with console timings). Plays any game at 1080p 60 FPS (Alot of the great MP games at 100-144FPS), plays *most* 1440p games at 40-60 FPS.
So, now when we talk about "bang for your buck" on a more equal playing field, a £450 GTX 1080 can play 1440P Ultra-Wide at 60+ FPS on benchmark games, and a good 40-60 FPS in 4k (non wide) games at 40-60 FPS in benchmark games - that still slams the XBOX1.
You keep harping on the same thing and trying to change the narrative. I asked if a PC that cost the same as the X do 60fps in PUBG. It's a simple question easily answered by the hermits, but the fact that we need to add in extra stuff tells me what I needed to know.
Because the narrative is flawed?
All these devices cost different sums, the only objective comparison to have is what a system offers to justify price differences. you can't just say "Xbox is fixed price, can a PC do that for the same" would be the equivilant of asking "My PS1 can play CDs and has these games for £100, Can your PS4 do that for the same price?" its just not a discussion worth happening, its justification through obscure means.
Again.
2 People on System Wars.
Xbox fans who own an Xbox one, and have bought an Xbox One X (E.G, no doubt the majority who gush over it here). PC Gamers who are likely either still in the GTX 9XX range or equivalent ATI comparing the usefulness of upgrading vs something like an Xbox One.
Xbox One X - £450 - Some games 4K 60 FPS (not many) most 30 FPS 4k, and some less. Nvidia GTX1080 - £450 - Majority of games 60 FPS 4k, or 2K Ultrawide 60FPS+
Then it comes down to "What do the systems offer outside of power" --- and in every single department, its completely one sided.
That simple, this asinine "can a PC provide the same for the same price?" well no... it provides much more regardless of which level of PC you go for.
You keep harping on the same thing and trying to change the narrative. I asked if a PC that cost the same as the X do 60fps in PUBG. It's a simple question easily answered by the hermits, but the fact that we need to add in extra stuff tells me what I needed to know.
I'm sorry but no PC gamer is gonna recommended you to build a $500 PC build on the same lever on X1X. Nobody builds a PC to match a console, that's stupid. And it should be noted PUBG is an Early Access game that's not well optimized, so no need to worry about 60fps not running on Xbox One X.
Log in to comment