Why do people say PC gaming is more expensive?

[QUOTE="stiggy321"] No... you can't Why would you spend 500 dollars to BUILD something that's only giving you 15 fps better than something that costs 300 dollars... and has low quality parts? You can't build a good PC for less than 600 dollars... and you can't buy one for less than 900.washd123

get over it i already posted parts and benchmarks. you can. it wont outperform it by a whole lot, but it will outperform it. ie you can build a $400 pc that will outperform a console. and no the parts arent 'low quality'. theres a difference between not the best and low quality. low quality implies its going to break or be obsolete in a week. all the parts listed ive personally used or know people who have or have used the brands.

a good pc is irrelevant. i never said you can build a great gaming pc for $400 you really cant. you can build one that outperforms the consoles.

That pc cost more then $400 any way you look at it if you take all the components and yet again you are guessing on the console benchmarks .

Um thats the benefit of console hardware and the reason why it holds up so much longer then any comparable hardware for the pc at the time of its release. Its the benefit of having speicific parts designed to work with each other. Denying that advantage is simply ridiculous at the end of the day 9 timesout of 10 the consoles beat those older cards and thats all that matters.

Also you just posted benchmarks of a of a pc on games that were all optmized for the latest end cards and built for the pc and you are now saying it outperforms the consoles? You even randomly assigned the settings on the console to help your argument. Hipporcrit much?

TheSterls

now youre just creating claims. i never denied any advantage. i merely said your logic doesnt work.

no game is ever optimized for individual gpus on the pc the same way it is on the consoles. therefore since its not optimized for those cards according to your logic you cant use any game as proof that a 7600gt is weaker than the ps3 (it is).

That pc cost more then $400 any way you look at it if you take all the components and yet again you are guessing on the console benchmarks .

TheSterls

i dont need to guess. the evidence is there.

not to mention that $400 pc based on the benchmarks would still outperform the consoles even if somehow the consoles were on max settings for RE5.

the pc didnt cost more than $400 maybe after tax and shipping.

seriously quit trying you can build a pc that will out perform a console for $400. stop acting like the consoles are some sort of godmachine.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Um thats the benefit of console hardware and the reason why it holds up so much longer then any comparable hardware for the pc at the time of its release. Its the benefit of having speicific parts designed to work with each other. Denying that advantage is simply ridiculous at the end of the day 9 timesout of 10 the consoles beat those older cards and thats all that matters.

Also you just posted benchmarks of a of a pc on games that were all optmized for the latest end cards and built for the pc and you are now saying it outperforms the consoles? You even randomly assigned the settings on the console to help your argument. Hipporcrit much?

washd123

now youre just creating claims. i never denied any advantage. i merely said your logic doesnt work.

no game is ever optimized for individual gpus on the pc the same way it is on the consoles. therefore since its not optimized for those cards according to your logic you cant use any game as proof that a 7600gt is weaker than the ps3 (it is).

LMAO so what exatly is your point? It outperforms it 9 times out of 10 and by a pretty wide margin so instead of attacking me with my failed logic why dont you attack the hermit who says consoles cant compete with a 7600gt.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

That pc cost more then $400 any way you look at it if you take all the components and yet again you are guessing on the console benchmarks .

washd123

i dont need to guess. the evidence is there.

not to mention that $400 pc based on the benchmarks would still outperform the consoles even if somehow the consoles were on max settings for RE5.

the pc didnt cost more than $400 maybe after tax and shipping.

seriously quit trying you can build a pc that will out perform a console for $400. stop acting like the consoles are some sort of godmachine.

The console settings are on max for RE5 one play themfor yourselves and look and two look at the digital foundry comparison. You downgarded the textures to medium thus the benchmark you listed doesnt look as good as its console counter part. Also as I said its impossible to say it outperforms it when consoles have to lock the frame rate at either 30 or 60fps while a pc will vary greatly between the two.

Beating a rig that cost $400 dollars is hardly a god machine , stop acting like you get a better expereince for nearly the same price because you dont. I already have a god machine its a GTX285 6gigs of ram and a I920 processor but it cost me a hell of alot more then $400

LMAO so what exatly is your point? It outperforms it 9 times out of 10 and by a pretty wide margin so instead of attacking me with my failed logic why dont you attack the hermit who says consoles cant compete with a 7600gt.

TheSterls

did you miss where i said he was wrong about 8 times?

7600gt? yes. 7800gtx? if fully optimized they might be an even match. as it stands the consoles outperform it even if its more powerful than the RSX

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

LMAO so what exatly is your point? It outperforms it 9 times out of 10 and by a pretty wide margin so instead of attacking me with my failed logic why dont you attack the hermit who says consoles cant compete with a 7600gt.

washd123

did you miss where i said he was wrong about 8 times?

7600gt? yes. 7800gtx? if fully optimized they might be an even match. as it stands the consoles outperform it even if its more powerful than the RSX

Um I dont see you quoting him only replying to me .

Ok, it's ridiculous to think that you can't build a $400 gaming pc that will out perform a console with 4-5 year old technology, but let's be realistic. Why do most people prefer consoles in the first place? The answer is simple, convenience. To the average person its ten times easier to simply buy a console, hook it up and veg out on their lazy boy. Most don't give computer gaming a second thought, and if you really think that any console can out perform a pc that's comparable in price, then you obviously have no idea what kind of hardware $300 - $400 can buy.

The console settings are on max for RE5 one paly them for yourselves and look and two look at the digital foundry comparison. You downgarded the textures to medium thus the benchmark you listed doesnt look as good as its console counter part. Also as I said its impossible to say it outperforms it when consoles have to lock the frame rate at either 30 or 60fps while a pc will vary greatly between the two.

Beating a rig that cost $400 dollars is hardly a god machine , stop acting like you get a better expereince for nearly the same price because you dont. If I already have a god machine its a GTX285 6gigs of ram and a I920 processor but it cost me a hell of alot more then $400

TheSterls

you fail and reading comprehension, so you may want to pay close attention

the GT240 (roughly a $60-75 card) gets 98fps at a resolution higher than 720p the hd4670 gets 75fps

if you can sit there and say with a straight face that putting the settings on max (ie upping the textures) would drop it to lower than 60fps. youre simply being delusional.

ah and theres the kicker, you can never get 'better' performance from the console youre stuck with the devs locking it. but why do you think its 'locked'? if it wasnt the frame rate would be all over the place and youd notice the framerate drops much more. however on the pc im going by the average frame rate.

or if you want look at FC2. on medium settings at 720p the hd4670 gets a minimum of 40fps. on the consoles at those same settings it drops down to 25fps and lower throughout the game.

hell even at 1080p it still manages 30fps MINIMUM.

im sorry but the facts are there in plain view. you can get a pc to outperform the consoles at $400.

[QUOTE="falldogout"]

Sure you gotta lay down a staple price (like 800$ but 400$ if you just build one)

AND you gotta upgrade (what 60$ every 1-2 years??)

But when it comes down to it. Games on the pc are very cheap. Pc has steam which is dead cheap.

And pc is a multi tasking system which means it does more than just play games

But most games i see on pc are a lot cheaper than a console game.

EDIT

While on a console you got your 300$ and your 50$ for accessories. And your 60$ a year (depends on console you choose but ps3 is getting premium also) for gaming online. And each new game is almost 70$ now. (Takes forever for them to drop in price you just slap those 70 big ones) Also you got your extra controllers (Extra 50$ or used which is like 20$)

Also your playing on a console thats not even graphically on par with pc.

kidcool189

Because if you dont build the PC yourself than it DOES cost more unless you live in a thrid world country like me where they dont charge anything for assembly.:P

It's not fair I think to compare building your own PC to a pre-built console.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The console settings are on max for RE5 one paly them for yourselves and look and two look at the digital foundry comparison. You downgarded the textures to medium thus the benchmark you listed doesnt look as good as its console counter part. Also as I said its impossible to say it outperforms it when consoles have to lock the frame rate at either 30 or 60fps while a pc will vary greatly between the two.

Beating a rig that cost $400 dollars is hardly a god machine , stop acting like you get a better expereince for nearly the same price because you dont. If I already have a god machine its a GTX285 6gigs of ram and a I920 processor but it cost me a hell of alot more then $400

washd123

you fail and reading comprehension, so you may want to pay close attention

the GT240 (roughly a $60-75 card) gets 98fps at a resolution higher than 720p the hd4670 gets 75fps

if you can sit there and say with a straight face that putting the settings on max (ie upping the textures) would drop it to lower than 60fps. youre simply being delusional.

ah and theres the kicker, you can never get 'better' performance from the console youre stuck with the devs locking it. but why do you think its 'locked'? if it wasnt the frame rate would be all over the place and youd notice the framerate drops much more. however on the pc im going by the average frame rate.

or if you want look at FC2. on medium settings at 720p the hd4670 gets a minimum of 40fps. on the consoles at those same settings it drops down to 25fps and lower throughout the game.

hell even at 1080p it still manages 30fps MINIMUM.

im sorry but the facts are there in plain view. you can get a pc to outperform the consoles at $400.

FC2 is a mix of medium and high settings as it is mostly medium settings , its still a bad comparsion for consoles as the game is heavy on memory usage for its large scale.

Um there has never been a console game in history torun over 60fps its simply a waste of power and poor optimization. Console devs will take the same engine add higher details and effects an keep the same frame rate, its how consoles keep up over the years . Why waste that power on a frame rate bonus nobody will notice.

According to your benchmark the GTS240 gets about 40fps with medium textures and no AA compared to the 360s high textures and 2XMSAA yes i do think that would make up for a 10fps diffrence. i dont know where the hell your gettting 98fps i guess your not refering to RE5 because that card hits no where near that on that game.

FC2 is a mix of medium and high settings as it is mostly medium settings , its still a bad comparsion for consoles as the game is heavy on memory usage for its large scale.

Um there has never been a console game in history torun over 60fps its simply a waste of power and poor optimization. Console devs will take the same engine add higher details and effects an keep the same frame rate, its how consoles keep up over the years . Why waste that power on a frame rate bonus nobody will notice.

According to your benchmark the GTS240 gets about 40fps with medium textures and no AA compared to the 360s high textures and 2XMSAA yes i do think that would make up for a 10fps diffrence. i dont know where the hell your gettting 98fps i guess your not refering to RE5 because that card hits no where near that on that game.

TheSterls

and its a bad comparison? why? its a game that the $400 pc shows better performance.

point is not many run over 30fps let alone 60fps.

98-101fps on RE5 with everything max except textures

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

FC2 is a mix of medium and high settings as it is mostly medium settings , its still a bad comparsion for consoles as the game is heavy on memory usage for its large scale.

Um there has never been a console game in history torun over 60fps its simply a waste of power and poor optimization. Console devs will take the same engine add higher details and effects an keep the same frame rate, its how consoles keep up over the years . Why waste that power on a frame rate bonus nobody will notice.

According to your benchmark the GTS240 gets about 40fps with medium textures and no AA compared to the 360s high textures and 2XMSAA yes i do think that would make up for a 10fps diffrence. i dont know where the hell your gettting 98fps i guess your not refering to RE5 because that card hits no where near that on that game.

washd123

and its a bad comparison? why? its a game that the $400 pc shows better performance.

point is not many run over 30fps let alone 60fps.

98-101fps on RE5 with everything max except textures

Um most consle games run between 30 and 60 for the reason i stated in my previous post.

It ha no AA and no AF compared ot the 360s 4XMSAA:| If you look on the same website the GTS240 framerate drops to about 66fps when put on the exact same settigns at its 360 counterpart. Thats also with a I920 procesosr that is far beyond the one you have lsted in your setup.

The GTS 240 is running at double the 360s fps and at a higher resolution.

I'm betting it can actually afford to turn on AAs and still retain very decent FPS. If it reduces its resolution, it definitely would be able to switch on AAs, thats for sure. Having 100+ fps at 1280x1024 means its a very decent gaming card.

edit : And I double checked and yes, my assumptions are correct.

According to this review : http://www.techspot.com/review/223-gainward-geforce-gt-240-review/page8.html
^^
The GTS 240 is running RE 5 at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 WITH 4xAA at 40+ fps and 30+ fps respectively, max quality on both cases.

even though this article is old...it can still be used for this thread...:P :D this wwas not written by me :O

Myth #1: PC gaming is way too expensive

It's easy to look at Voodoo PC, Alienware, Falcon Northwest, or even HP's new Blackbird and think that gaming PCs cost thousands of dollars. I mean, you can't get a PC that plays games well for under three grand, right? Not even close. Remember that Get Your Girlfriend To Build Her Own PC thing we did? That total system upgrade project cost under $1,500, and it plays games great. A couple times a year, we feature an $800 Budget Gaming PC in the Build-It section of the site. You can't crank up the settings on every new game on these boxes, only most of them.

But say you don't want to build your own PC. We understand—it can be intimidating. I went to Dell's website today and configured an Inspiron 530 with a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, Vista Home Premium, 2 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, a 320GB hard drive, and DVD burner for $1050. That's with integrated graphics because the graphics options offered aren't too great. You gotta tack on $300 to buy a 320MB GeForce 8800 GTS from anywhere else on the web, which you can install yourself quite easily (no, really. It's not like "building your computer." Your mom can do it.). Oh, and that's with a 22" widescreen monitor.

That machine will play literally every modern PC game at its super-duper-pretty settings at 1680x1050 (take that, 720p console games!) for less than $1,500. You can do the same thing with computers from HP, or Gateway, or whatever your mass-market PC vendor of choice is. Just buy a system with a medium-grade processor, 2 gigs of fast RAM, and choose the cheapest graphics option they offer because you'll replace it with something good. Hell, even a 20" iMac with one gig of memory and a graphics card not half as fast will cost you $1,500, and people seem to pine over those.

Of course, $1,500 isn't chump change. It's far more expensive than a $300 console system. But of course, you do a lot more with it, right? You're probably reading this on a PC. It's where you watch all those game videos and read those gaming sites and blogs. It's where you get your email, download music, sync up your iPod, subscribe to podcasts, IM your friends, and all that good stuff.


After the cost of entry, PC gaming is actually a better deal than consoles. For starters, top-tier PC games cost $50, while console games have bumped up the price to $60. And while you can hardly ever find good deals on hot new console games, new PC games are discounted in many retail stores all the time. Just today, I saw the brand-spanking-new triple-A game World in Conflict is on sale at Frys for $40. Older games are available on digital download services and in stores for often $20 or $30. Digital download systems abound. In fact, the best deal in gaming anywhere is the PC-only GameTap. For $10 a month, you can play almost 1,000 full games (and the list grows rapidly), including pixel-perfect emulated retro arcade games, console games, and PC games—many a year or two old and some even very new.

Let me give one specific example. Valve's The Orange Box is coming to Xbox 360 simultaneous with its PC launch, and to PS3 shortly after. It's $60 for the 360 and $50 for the PC, and both have $5 off pre-order deals. If you preorder on the 360, you get it when it comes out. If you preorder on the PC through Steam, you get access to Team Fortress 2 right now, and of course you can pre-load the games before release and just download the last little stub right away when it's released so you can play it immediately. Which is the better deal? Don't ask me, I'm too busy having a blast playing Team Fortress 2.

Consoles are just getting into the whole free demo download thing, but the PC is king of that realm. You could spend hours a day doing little else other than playing the dozens, even hundreds of PC demos that are released each year. Not to mention the astounding number of free games out there for the PC. On the consoles, almost nothing is ever free.

Oh, and next time you get nickel-and-dimed for every little content download for a game you paid $60 for, sometimes even charging you for what amounts to a cheat code, ask yourself if that inexpensive console is really saving your more money than the guy on his PC downloading oodles of free user-generated content, often of equal or better quality, and playing online for free

link to article

I like to put it like this, if you are getting a computer add the price of a console (most likely less) to that price you will have a more than sufficiant PC for gaming.wooooode

Who upgrades every six months? :?

psn8214

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

There is noting on the console version that is being run on low are medium settings and the pictures prove that , the comparison is right in front of your eyes. Low settings have no shadows, no specualar mapping and far lower res textures the fact I have to even argue this with you proves you havent even seen the console versions. Two there is not any feature cod4 has on it that cant be done on consoles, look at codMW 2it troucned it in everyway even the texture quality was better so yet again im just wasting my time.

http://www.overclock.net/video-game-news/609603-gamespot-mw2-graphics-comparison.html

Hmmm wonder how a 7600gt is gonna run that lmao.

TheSterls

That detail is negligle at best on cod MW2 if you had seen both versions you wouldnt even argue this. A 7600 gt could not do any of the DX10 features so its basicalaly doing it on the exact same settings at consoles at a sligly higher res and its getting obliterated by nearly 41fps no a 7600gt will not outperform a console end of story.

You need to get over that consoles are not more powerful then their Pc equals which are 2004-2005 based tech. Every game including the call of dutys, Oblivion, and many multiplatform games look better then any of the console versions, even with Geforce 6 or 7. Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

Sure you gotta lay down a staple price (like 800$ but 400$ if you just build one)

AND you gotta upgrade (what 60$ every 1-2 years??)

But when it comes down to it. Games on the pc are very cheap. Pc has steam which is dead cheap.

And pc is a multi tasking system which means it does more than just play games

But most games i see on pc are a lot cheaper than a console game.

EDIT

While on a console you got your 300$ and your 50$ for accessories. And your 60$ a year (depends on console you choose but ps3 is getting premium also) for gaming online. And each new game is almost 70$ now. (Takes forever for them to drop in price you just slap those 70 big ones) Also you got your extra controllers (Extra 50$ or used which is like 20$)

Also your playing on a console thats not even graphically on par with pc.

falldogout

You act as though users are only allowed to make smart purchases on pc.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

Who upgrades every six months? :?

XBebop

the only ones you really should do is more ram and a new GPU once every 2 years

the CPU side is kinda iffy because most software still isn't optimized even for dual cores much less quad cores and so-on, so it really depends on what kind of tasks you plan on doing, so you can go with a cheaper processor at first or just splurge on something more powerful or wait until a later date and upgrade to a more powerful CPU when it becomes practical

and a motherboard should last a very long time unless new standards come out but even then it's better to wait a few years

upgrading everytime something new comes out makes about as much sense as buying a new car every year

Sure you gotta lay down a staple price (like 800$ but 400$ if you just build one)

AND you gotta upgrade (what 60$ every 1-2 years??)

But when it comes down to it. Games on the pc are very cheap. Pc has steam which is dead cheap.

And pc is a multi tasking system which means it does more than just play games

But most games i see on pc are a lot cheaper than a console game.

EDIT

While on a console you got your 300$ and your 50$ for accessories. And your 60$ a year (depends on console you choose but ps3 is getting premium also) for gaming online. And each new game is almost 70$ now. (Takes forever for them to drop in price you just slap those 70 big ones) Also you got your extra controllers (Extra 50$ or used which is like 20$)

Also your playing on a console thats not even graphically on par with pc.

falldogout

Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

04dcarraher

thats a bold faced lie right there. even if it did it wouldnt be running at 60fps or 30fps.

give the consoles some credit. they both easily compete with a stock hd4650 or a 9500gt

It's not only because PC's are expensive but there not primarily built for games, and hardware isn't the only thing you have to check before playing a game, you have to meet the minimum system requirements, which means you have to have the hardware and see if it works on Windows XP, Vista, or 7. Plus very few people want to go through the trouble of connecting a PC to there big LCD or Plasma TV, and very few people want to be stuck in front of a 17-inch monitor using, a keyboard, mouse combo for controls. Consoles come on instantly and have there designated games that will load up and you'll be playing in seconds, as opposed to waiting for a PC to boot up, then loading the game, then doing updates for the game and then 15 minutes later getting your finally playing the game. It really amazes me that PC gaming is still going to tell the truth, i'm getting bored and frustrated just typing about all the delays, bugs, and problems with PC gaming.RPG-explorer

pcs arent expensive all things considered. intially they cost more than consoles but youll save more.

and you dont need to check minimum reqs any more than you need to check to see if youre putting a ps3 game in a ps3.

trouble? connecting a single hdmi cord is trouble now?

hm funny last time me and my friend started up his ps3 we had to wait for it to download a patch before we could play. by the time we got into the first level of KZ2 i had already booted up my laptop and had started playing HL2.

you may be experience deleys and bugs but theyre not universal. all it takes is a little bit of knowledge maybe reading a magazine or two and you wont experience those issues unless you choose to.

and im tired of typing about the consoles issues. its not like theyre oh so convenient and problem free.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

washd123

thats a bold faced lie right there. even if it did it wouldnt be running at 60fps or 30fps.

give the consoles some credit. they both easily compete with a stock hd4650 or a 9500gt

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

04dcarraher

thats a bold faced lie right there. even if it did it wouldnt be running at 60fps or 30fps.

give the consoles some credit. they both easily compete with a stock hd4650 or a 9500gt

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

PS3-300$

Online gaming- Free

Games ? That all depends on how many you buy. I can wait 4 to 5 monthes for a title and get it for 40$ or I can rent a game from gamefly and pay 10 bucks a month . I proved my point its cheaper

TheSterls

What about the PC that you have to buy so that you can come on here and make your ridiculous statements?

Also, if you're going to say $300 for a PS3 then you had to wait 3 years for it to drop to that price.

You can't argue that something is cheaper in the manner that you're attempting to.

It's like you're trying to tell me that a bicycle with no wheels for $100 is cheaper than a bicycle with wheels for $150. Sorry, there's more to it than that.

You're just a typical shortsided consolite who refuses to look at every single expense encountered when choosing to be a console gamer vs choosing to be a PC gamer.

I'll consider that you're still alive when you consider ALL the FACTS. I doubt that will happen since posting facts is something you're yet to do.

Im not sure what is so hard for you to comprehend ? I could reply on here with a 15 year old pc that is worth nothing if I wanted to. Hell I could get a PS3 with linux on it and reply on here If i wanted to . I am a gamer i buy platforms for exclusives so its basically no diffrent then me saying well if I buy a PC i need to buy a PS3 so I can play GOW3 so I guess I should add that in the price of my platform as well?

Also if you are going to compare todays pc prices to consoles then its only fair I use todays console prices. What do we now compare todays lowered pc parts with last years $600 PS3?

Um if im a typical shortside PC gamer why am I typing to you from a $1500 dollar pc I built myself? The fact is you are a typical hermit that apparently does not have the money to enjoy the true advantages of pc gaming thus you lie to yourself and say you get this elite expereince by paying less then the consoles and thats simply not the case.PC gaming has its advantages I know this but you pay for them and if you dont pay for them you simply dont get it thats the diffrence between you and i. I own both platforms you owna cheap pc which makes your entire argument illogical at best.

What have i posted that is not a fact? Is the PS3 not $300? Is the online not Free? Those by definition are facts you simply dont read well.

So now you're speculating on my income? Whether I own a console or not? Whether I have a cheap PC or not? Are you F*&CKING kidding me?

PC gaming is cheaper for most people, this is a fact and it has been laid out why time and time again. You have yet to provide a single example of how/why console gaming is cheaper. The fact that YOU overpaid for a gaming PC is NOT a reason for PC gaming being more expensive. We all know that PC gaming CAN be more expensive, that is not the argument. You can have all the advantages of PC gaming AND have it for less.

I've consistently said for "most people" and you come back with "i could be posting from a 15 year old pc" which FURTHER proves my point....and that is you continually have to come up with far fetched cases in order to make your argument stand up.

The vast majority of people buy a new PC about as often as consoles come out and the cost of turning that PC into a gaming PC is very little. Throw on an extra $20 per game, free online, and it's a no brainer.

Come to think of it, you haven't really even posted your argument as to why console gaming is cheaper. You've done nothing but say we're wrong, yet you can't make the argument on your own.

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"]

if you know how or can be bothered to buikd your own pc then it would probably work out cheaper. but most gamers, myself included, don't know the first thing about building computers so have to rely on manufactured pcs and laptops from big electrical stores that cost a lot of money.

when people invest in a console they can be confident that any game they buy for the platform will run on their console.

of course there's the common misconception that pc's need upgrading every couple of years and i'm sure that in the long run they work out cheaper financially than consoles. but they're very much more expensive in terms of hassle and stress if you don't know how to build, work and fix them

my_name_is_ron

It takes 5 minutes to learn how to build a computer... You don't need special tools (only your hands), you don't need a bachelor's degree in computer science, you don't even need to know how computers work.

google is your friend, chances are you arent the only one with that error.

PC gaming has gotten cheaper now in 2009 and 2010. But thats only because most games dont take advantage of the hardware PC has to offer. Most if not all games are DX9 with DX 10/11 support. You can build a good PC for $500/600 that will run must if not all games at max. But in 2007 if you wanted a top of the line PC you were going to have to pay at least $1500.

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"]A PC is dearer than a console, fact. 200 euro for a Wii or 360 nowadays. robflores370

And a $199 rock is cheaper than a 200 euro Xbox 360. That means the rock is a much better buy than the console, right?

If the rock is a current gen gaming system, then yes you would be correct.

My God don't even get me started on this - having to upgrade graphics cards, RAM, hard drive space, the list goes on and on. It's why I switched to console gaming.

I guess console gaming is good for budget gamers but only pc gaming is fit for a king.

I guess console gaming is good for budget gamers but for only pc gaming is fit for a king.

anshul89

Cus Id want a very very very very powerfull one that cost me lots of cash. I WANT USB 3.0 on my motherboard

I guess console gaming is good for budget gamers but only pc gaming is fit for a king.

anshul89

Good games are on all platforms.

But valve/steam is pc King.

Steam alone is enough reason to get a pc.

Long story short, while the pc may end up costing more than a single console, it will not only offer you more quality exclusives than all the consoles combined this generation if we go by SW scores, but you can also browse the web, do media stuff, etc. The icing on the cake is that games start off cheaper and their prices drop much faster and lower. Find me 5 distinct AAAE non-PSN/LIVE games for $20 or less. On the pc, however, not even counting steams miraculous sales, there are dozens of quality titles from this gen at that price point, and much sooner after their release. A perfect example of this is DA:O, which not only prettier and better in every way on the PC, but it is also much cheaper than its console counterparts.

It's true pc gaming is not the demon it's made out to be. Then again Im reading these words on a $300 dollar monitor hooked to a $200 surround sound system and both were bought especially for my pc, so y'know, everything is relative.

I never upgrade my tv when I buy a new console I always without fail upgrade my monitor and sound when I get a new pc.

800$ gaming PC built from 99% of companies is overpriced. "Hey cool i got a geforce 8600GT WOOT and a dual core processor for 800$" Good luck running current games on anything but medium with that. Most people don't want to take the time to go build a PC when they can go down to the store pick up a 199-299$ console and a game.

Not to mention some people want a machine strictly for gaming. If you're going to spend 800$ strictly on a PC you aren't going to just use it for gaming unless your rich or your mommy and daddy are rich.

Console gaming is less of a hassle and you don't have to worry about the installing process or your computer ending up with a virus or just running sluggish for some reason.

10 years console life

or a neverending upgrade for pc..in new games to come

that is really good answer

10 year i will select

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] There is such a thing as low shadows or high quality shadows or texture settings, With Cod MW2 in this comparsion shows even with a poor port job for Pc it still out do the consoles

04dcarraher

That detail is negligle at best on cod MW2 if you had seen both versions you wouldnt even argue this. A 7600 gt could not do any of the DX10 features so its basicalaly doing it on the exact same settings at consoles at a sligly higher res and its getting obliterated by nearly 41fps no a 7600gt will not outperform a console end of story.

You need to get over that consoles are not more powerful then their Pc equals which are 2004-2005 based tech. Every game including the call of dutys, Oblivion, and many multiplatform games look better then any of the console versions, even with Geforce 6 or 7. Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

Nope wrong again. Look at the benchmarks on oblivion on a 66000 it looks horrible in comparsion and you cant even find MW 2 benchmarks on a 7600. Did I say consoles were more powerful then current pc hardware in any of my post? No I said it would out perform the 6 and 7 series in nearly every game released and it does. The miserable benchmarks in COD 4 pretty much prove that and its only going to get worse for those older pc gpu's as devs are not going to waste time optimzing for them( another problem with pc hardware). Anyways ive posted repeted proof to show you are wrong and even the herimts agree with me in this instance so give it up. Im done with you.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2746&p=4

Theres your precious card getting an average of 10fps at simliar settings . Funny in every one of your claims you havent posted any screenshots are links to proof to back anything up.

10 years console life

or a neverending upgrade for pc..in new games to come

that is really good answer

10 year i will select

majestix1988

lol yeah no console has lasted 10 years. so far the longest is the ps2 which was 6 years. these consoles may push 7 at best.

but guess what a pc bought in 2005 will still play games. at about the same settings as the consoles. and it will continue to do so. theres no constant upgrade.

I don't like the hassle of the Pc, call me lazy but thats me. And I would rather play with a controllerAngry_Meat

It's cool you don't like PC gaming, but you should know that PCs have USB ports, which means that they can use controllers as well.