System Wars and Initial Hardware Costs

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

Maybe a lot of them live off their $250 paychecks they get working part time throughout highschool?

Or maybe they just live off Christmas and Birthday money?

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

NVIDIATI

yeah, no one likes looking at the long-term around here.

unless it's negative and they can use it as ammo against someone else.

yeah, no one likes looking at the long-term around here.

unless it's negative and they can use it as ammo against someone else.

HavocV3

Well regarding longivity - two graphics cards "died" on me and no console till now (didn't own a 360 for long). PC games are the cheapest, yes (but not by much).

I also spent a lot more on PC hardware and accessories than on consoles.

I've noticed some console gamers have super high end TV/sound systems, right up to when we are talking about costs; and it turns into something more modest.

I'd have to question the point of boasting about 60" 1080p screens to be quite frank, it's the exact same 720p image being stretched across them.

Probably because usually the largest amount of money you'll be spending at once. I see where you're going with this though. For instance I have 36 games for PS3. Lets just assume I paid $60 for all of them (Some of them less, some of them were SEs). So I've spent ~$2,160 on software since 2007. If I had a PC, I would have only spent ~$1,800. That $360 difference plus the $500 I initally spent for my PS3 would have been more than enough to buy a PC, with some money left over as well.

I've noticed some console gamers have super high end TV/sound systems, right up to when we are talking about costs; and it turns into something more modest.

I'd have to question the point of boasting about 60" 1080p screens to be quite frank, it's the exact same 720p image being stretched across them.

AnnoyedDragon

Whoa haven't seen you on SW in ages!

Whoa haven't seen you on SW in ages!

BPoole96

Yeah, took a little break. Came back to find the exact same arguements, only now there is a 3 at the end of KZ and Gears.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

yeah, no one likes looking at the long-term around here.

unless it's negative and they can use it as ammo against someone else.

NVIDIATI

I thought you were hinting at something PC cost related with this thread.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

Whoa haven't seen you on SW in ages!

AnnoyedDragon

Yeah, took a little break. Came back to find the exact same arguements, only now there is a 3 and the end of KZ and Gears.

And soon enough there will be a 2 after Crysis and a 3 after Uncharted! Man I love SW!

I've noticed some console gamers have super high end TV/sound systems, right up to when we are talking about costs; and it turns into something more modest.

I'd have to question the point of boasting about 60" 1080p screens to be quite frank, it's the exact same 720p image being stretched across them.

AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

shinrabanshou

Agreed, though the flip floppage of arguments certainly isn't limited to this forum.

I've noticed some console gamers have super high end TV/sound systems, right up to when we are talking about costs; and it turns into something more modest.

I'd have to question the point of boasting about 60" 1080p screens to be quite frank, it's the exact same 720p image being stretched across them.

AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

yeah, no one likes looking at the long-term around here.

unless it's negative and they can use it as ammo against someone else.

HavocV3

I thought you were hinting at something PC cost related with this thread.

Maybe a lot of them live off their $250 paychecks they get working part time throughout highschool?

Or maybe they just live off Christmas and Birthday money?

Raymundo_Manuel

Please don't hate on us kiddies.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] I didn't know the first week is long term :P I mean two people walk into a store with the short term goal of buying a system to play game X on, one spends $360+tax on a PS3+game X the other $360+tax on a 360+game X. The person who purchased the 360 now needs to spend $60 for XBL to play their game online. Overall the PS3 would have been the better deal in this situation.

NVIDIATI

I thought you were hinting at something PC cost related with this thread.

That's a highly subjective matter. A console lasts you atleast 4 years while a PC gets outdated pretty soon. To the point where you can't even run new games anymore.

Initial hardware costs to swallow, especially if there's no financing option. It takes some time to budget everything and discipline/time to get some more expensive things, whereas some people would rather enjoy games/systems now instead of worrying about a more distant endgoal.

But like someone said above, price usually goes out the window when features are involved, at least on this forum. You'd think Amazon had a sell on huge 3DTV and 7.1 Surround sound systems the way some people talk.

The dispay is the same for consoles and PCs though.AmazingGaming

If a PC were to be hooked up to that display, the difference is the PC could play all games at the displays native 1080p resolution. If however you were referring to PC monitors, they aren't the same as televisions. PC monitors have a far higher pixel density, which gives a sharper image when viewing up close. Televisions use low pixel density to produce bigger screens, but they must be viewed at a distance; or the image turns iffy. You can pretty much count the pixels on a large TV when you are up close.

[QUOTE="AmazingGaming"]The dispay is the same for consoles and PCs though.AnnoyedDragon

If a PC were to be hooked up to that display, the difference is the PC could play all games at the displays native 1080p resolution. If however you were referring to PC monitors, they aren't the same as televisions. PC monitors have a far higher pixel density, which gives a sharper image when viewing up close. Televisions use low pixel density to produce bigger screens, but they must be viewed at a distance; or the image turns iffy. You can pretty much count the pixels on a large TV when you are up close.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

I thought you were hinting at something PC cost related with this thread.

nameless12345

That's a highly subjective matter. A console lasts you atleast 4 years while a PC gets outdated pretty soon. To the point where you can't even run new games anymore.

Well, I think people need to realize that, in the PS3s case, they couldnt have sold it any lower then 600 otherwise it would be suicide for them considering the console when it launched was like 700-800 bucks to make.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

I thought you were hinting at something PC cost related with this thread.

nameless12345

That's a highly subjective matter. A console lasts you atleast 4 years while a PC gets outdated pretty soon. To the point where you can't even run new games anymore.

That's a highly subjective matter. A console lasts you atleast 4 years while a PC gets outdated pretty soon. To the point where you can't even run new games anymore.

nameless12345

Wrong.

My 2007 PC still plays just about every game at high settings and 1680x1050 resolution.

It will always produce much better graphics and performance than any console of this gen.

Heck my 2004 PC can still play games from today.

No, I just mean at this stage everything hooks up to everything. PCs and consoles can all use monitors and TVs, so it'll be the same in terms of cost surely?AmazingGaming

This is actually touching on the criticism I spoke of earlier.

They prefer to play on the couch on their big 1080p TV, but come an expense debate; that TV suddenly turns into something a lot cheaper.

Yes, you can hook a PC to a TV and a console to a monitor, those are options available to you. But in a console Vs PC cost debate, using a PC monitor to keep the cost of a console down is simply mental gymnastics, using whatever rational available to get an edge in the debate. The fact of the matter is; most console gamers use a TV and most PC gamers use a monitor, people using other displays are exceptions. Options, but still exceptions from the rule.

[QUOTE="AmazingGaming"] No, I just mean at this stage everything hooks up to everything. PCs and consoles can all use monitors and TVs, so it'll be the same in terms of cost surely?AnnoyedDragon

This is actually touching on the criticism I spoke of earlier.

They prefer to play on the couch on their big 1080p TV, but come an expense debate; that TV suddenly turns into something a lot cheaper.

Yes, you can hook a PC to a TV and a console to a monitor, those are options available to you. But in a console Vs PC cost debate, using a PC monitor to keep the cost of a console down is simply mental gymnastics, using whatever rational available to get an edge in the debate. The fact of the matter is; most console gamers use a TV and most PC gamers use a monitor, people using other displays are exceptions. Options, but still exceptions from the rule.

[QUOTE="AmazingGaming"] No, I just mean at this stage everything hooks up to everything. PCs and consoles can all use monitors and TVs, so it'll be the same in terms of cost surely?AnnoyedDragon

This is actually touching on the criticism I spoke of earlier.

They prefer to play on the couch on their big 1080p TV, but come an expense debate; that TV suddenly turns into something a lot cheaper.

Yes, you can hook a PC to a TV and a console to a monitor, those are options available to you. But in a console Vs PC cost debate, using a PC monitor to keep the cost of a console down is simply mental gymnastics, using whatever rational available to get an edge in the debate. The fact of the matter is; most console gamers use a TV and most PC gamers use a monitor, people using other displays are exceptions. Options, but still exceptions from the rule.

O I'm not trying to twist around or anything. I just know that I personally have played a 360 on a monitor and a PC on a big TV. It just seems pointless to me to bring up display when both consoles and PC have access to the exact same options, at the exact same prices, and while the majority might prefer one or the other, it's certainly not uncommon to see Crysis on a big screen or Halo on a monitor.AmazingGaming

Oh I'm not accusing you of thinking this way, simply saying I've seen the rational used in cost threads.

In the real world there are people playing on monitors/televisions as a interchangeable display. But in SW it often gets abused by people who most likely have no intent of playing their console on a monitor, simply using it to keep the "required to play" cost of consoles down in the debate. As 1080p televisions become cheaper, we may see some of them switching back to using televisions in their arguments instead of PC monitors.

It is not something that you would really consider a big deal. But with the number of console gamers that argue "a big TV" as a perk over PC; it is interesting to see it turn into a monitor/smaller TV during those sort of debates.

[QUOTE="AmazingGaming"]O I'm not trying to twist around or anything. I just know that I personally have played a 360 on a monitor and a PC on a big TV. It just seems pointless to me to bring up display when both consoles and PC have access to the exact same options, at the exact same prices, and while the majority might prefer one or the other, it's certainly not uncommon to see Crysis on a big screen or Halo on a monitor.AnnoyedDragon

Oh I'm not accusing you of thinking this way, simply saying I've seen the rational used in cost threads.

In the real world there are people playing on monitors/televisions as a interchangeable display. But in SW it often gets abused by people who most likely have no intent of playing their console on a monitor, simply using it to keep the "required to play" cost of consoles down in the debate. As 1080p televisions become cheaper, we may see some of them switching back to using televisions in their arguments instead of PC monitors.

It is not something that you would really consider a big deal. But with the number of console gamers that argue "a big TV" as a perk over PC; it is interesting to see it turn into a monitor/smaller TV during those sort of debates.

So far the general consensus is that the argument is mostly fanboy talk, though I get a feeling we'll still be seeing more of it :(

UPDATE: Poll added.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Not really, though personally I do feel PC does have some of the best value in the long term

Frozzik

That's a highly subjective matter. A console lasts you atleast 4 years while a PC gets outdated pretty soon. To the point where you can't even run new games anymore.

Well it is not nonsense to me. I got an GeForce 4 MX card in 2002 and in 2003 there were already games that didn't run on it. Maybe a 8800 GTS is more durable, but that doesn't change the fact that PC hardware gets outdated soon.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Heck my 2004 PC can still play games from today.

RyviusRan

Yeah, but surely they look great :P

Just Cause 2 wouldn't run on 2004 hardware.

Well it is not nonsense to me. I got an GeForce 4 MX card in 2002 and in 2003 there were already games that didn't run on it. Maybe a 8800 GTS is more durable, but that doesn't change the fact that PC hardware gets outdated soon.

nameless12345

Things have changed considerably since the Geforce 4.

This generation is more cross platform orientated because of the increasing costs of game development, driving developers to expand their audience across multiple platforms. As a result consoles have become a bottleneck for most games, restricting technological progress.

Hardware doesn't become obsolete anywhere near as fast.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well it is not nonsense to me. I got an GeForce 4 MX card in 2002 and in 2003 there were already games that didn't run on it. Maybe a 8800 GTS is more durable, but that doesn't change the fact that PC hardware gets outdated soon.

AnnoyedDragon

Things have changed considerably since the Geforce 4.

This generation is more cross platform orientated because of the increasing costs of game development, driving developers to expand their audience across multiple platforms. As a result consoles have become a bottleneck for most games, restricting technological progress.

Hardware doesn't become obsolete anywhere near as fast.

Yeah, but surely they look great :P

Just Cause 2 wouldn't run on 2004 hardware.

nameless12345

Sure it could.

You just play with lower settings.

My 2004 computer used a 6800gt.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yeah, but surely they look great :P

Just Cause 2 wouldn't run on 2004 hardware.

RyviusRan

Sure it could.

You just play with lower settings.

My 2004 computer used a 6800gt.

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

NVIDIATI

if i spend money to build whatever passes for a state of the art rig and it does the best version of a game then it is the best version end of story.

is this a game site or a budget site?

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

Riverwolf007

if i spend money to build whatever passes for a state of the art rig and it does the best version of a game then it is the best version end of story.

is this a game site or a budget site?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

NVIDIATI

if i spend money to build whatever passes for a state of the art rig and it does the best version of a game then it is the best version end of story.

is this a game site or a budget site?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

Why does System wars make such a big deal out of initial hardware costs for a system? Yet ignore other factors such as, upkeep, lifespan, price of games, price of add-ons / services, etc. Is it just some fanboy logic? Or is there a real reason behind it?

NVIDIATI

if i spend money to build whatever passes for a state of the art rig and it does the best version of a game then it is the best version end of story.

is this a game site or a budget site?

i have literally and willingly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of people, so have you.

still want to be realistic?

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]my question would be where and why does money figure into it at all?

if i spend money to build whatever passes for a state of the art rig and it does the best version of a game then it is the best version end of story.

is this a game site or a budget site?

Riverwolf007

i have literally and willingly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of people, so have you.

still want to be realistic?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yeah, but surely they look great :P

Just Cause 2 wouldn't run on 2004 hardware.

RyviusRan

Sure it could.

You just play with lower settings.

My 2004 computer used a 6800gt.

Just Cause 2 on the PC is DX10 only, while a 6800 GT is a DX9 card.

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yeah, but surely they look great :P

Just Cause 2 wouldn't run on 2004 hardware.

NVIDIATI

Sure it could.

You just play with lower settings.

My 2004 computer used a 6800gt.

My 7600 GT runs Crysis on low and it looks worse than console games.

My 7600 GT runs Crysis on low and it looks worse than console games.

nameless12345

Not this argument again.

The 7600gt could do medium settings on Crysis.

And medium still looks good.