Why do people say PC gaming is more expensive?

its not about the price...its just..consoles>>>pc.....imo...plus many good games that r not on pc...planbfreak4eva

lol how do you come up with this?

Do you realize that you are wrong?

How do we divine the price of a platform? Obviously it is the additional cost you would need to lay down to enjoy this said platform.

We don't count the [HD]TV? Because most already have one. So why should we count the cost of the entire PC when most already have one? You have an old PC that is slower then slowpoke? Maybe you should consider getting a new one anyway since it will be a good investment. You have a Mac? Then you obviously have more money then sense so I wouldn't say that is an argument. The additional cost tends to be the graphics card. If you want the best of the best you can go all out, much like you can buy any console at launch for a premium price, but what you want is bang for bucks and there are plenty of those. Thanks to consoles visual progression has come to a crawl so even the 3 year old 8800GT can run anything at 1080p without a swet.

The 'high initial costs' only apply to people that have absolutely nothing to start with, which would be like saying. Can't assemble a PC yourself? Seriously, it's not that hard. You can add and subtract right? "1+1=2, if I can build a PC then so can you."

I also love it when people sum up the entire exclusive library of consoles then put it up against the PC and say 'win'. There are plenty of exclusives you can't get either on consoles, you'd need a PC for that. Ever think about that, huh?Ohhhh right, they don't appeal to you? So that's it, the PC exclusives don't count because they don't appeal to you? Right.You're also putting up 3 platforms vs 1 to make your point, doesn't that say enough?

How about the things we can do on PC you can't do on console? How can you put a price on that when you can't even do it on a console? I'm talking EyeInfinity, both K/M and controller support for all games etc ontop of non-game activities such as browsing the web, watch some youtube without having it crash or do some typing etc. How are you looking at my post atm anyway? I sure hope its your PS3.

There are plenty of advantages to being a PC gamer. No more jacking, no more sub 1080p resolutions, more options for prefered controls, I can go on all day long. The biggest advantage of consoles was splitscreen but sadly wayy to many games are dropping it in favour of online gameplay.

Ontop of all this PC games are the cheapest of any platform. Damn, PC gaming sure is expensive.

I don't really care about all this price nonsense. When I can play FF13, Bayonetta, Darksiders, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, Disgaea 3, and Demon's Souls on a PC, then I'll start giving a crap.Greyfeld

I have a low spec 2-year old laptop that i use to play a few pc games that interest me, like Civ IV, Football Manager, Heroes of Might and Magic 5, and a few others. I'm not really interested in playing FPS games on my laptop, to be perfectly honest. KB/M may well be superior, but ive grown used to my 360 controller and the split screen function that games like Gears offer.

its just preference at the end of the day.

I have a low spec 2-year old laptop that i use to play a few pc games that interest me, like Civ IV, Football Manager, Heroes of Might and Magic 5, and a few others. I'm not really interested in playing FPS games on my laptop, to be perfectly honest. KB/M may well be superior, but ive grown used to my 360 controller and the split screen function that games like Gears offer.

its just preference at the end of the day.

Bunj84

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

falldogout

Answered your own question. Your average non-computer savvy person is going to buy one, not build (I would actually factor the building into the cost because time is money) and for a great gaming computer prebuilt, it's probably going to cost 1 to 2 grand assuming you want a top of the line one that you only need to update once or twice every year or two. Get a less stellar one and that once or twice a year update will need to happen more often. And 400$ build your self is STILL more than any console currently out there, so again it isn't cheaper at all in that respect.

As for acessory cost...PC gaming has accesories. There are arcade pads, joypads, headsets, racing wheels, etc. You don't have to buy these, but you also don't have to buy console accesories. Online is also not a requirement for gaming (and only xbox charges for it just to play online at all) and to be fair, PC has mmo's that cost 180$ a year (per game) plus whatever you buy in the games micro transaction store.

I have nothing against PC gaming. I game on the PC but I generally prefer consoles because A. I prefer a controller or wiimote. B. Consoles are 100% simpler. I never have had to take apart my wii to upgrade it, spend 5 hours figuring out why X game refuses to run on it even though it should run, visiting help forums to figure out what some cryptic error means, etc.

Need proof from the horses mouth?

September 2009

NEWS:

Microsoft lifts 720p Xbox 360 requirement "

Microsoft has reportedly lifted the requirement for 720p resolutions and fullscreen anti-aliasing in Xbox 360 games. Black Rock technical director David Jeffries has revealed that Microsoft adjusted the development requirements for Xbox 360 gamers earlier this year, removing the demand that all games support 720p and fullscreen anti-aliasing. Writing in a guest column for Develop Jeffries revealed that Microsoft had tweaked the development requirements to compensate for a change in HD TV resolutions and to free up developers artistically. "Now we are free to make the trade-off between resolution and image quality as we see fit," wrote Jefferies, who said that another reason for the change was 720p TVs emerging from the likes of Sony and Samsung which run at 1366x768 and not true 1280x720 resolution, meaning that game images were being automatically upscaled. As Jeffries points out though, rather than forcing developers to support different resolutions or forcing them to drop features in order to get smooth framerates at true 720p the adjustments allow developers more freedom to use better graphical effects at lower resolutions. Jeffries, who worked on Black Rock's Pure, revealed that the demand for certain resolutions and surrounding confusion will likely become less of an issue as 1080p becomes more of a standard for consumers and manafacturers. "

Right there shows that they are/were lowering resolution(sub 720) and features on most games to provide better performance. Also here are some more proof of native resolutions

PS3: A nice chunk dont have AA or native 720

Alone in the Dark = 1120x630 (no AA)
Avatar = 1280x692 (QAA, black borders)
Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)

Bioshock = 680p (no AA, blur filter pre-patch)

Brutal Legend = 1152x720 (no AA)
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood = 1152x648 (4x2 custom edge AA)
Conan (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
Dark Sector = 1152x640 (no AA)
Darksiders = 1152x648 (no AA)
Far Cry 2 = 1274x692 (QAA, black borders)
Fracture = 1152x648 (no AA)
Ghostbusters = 960x540 (QAA, pre-patch)

Grand Theft Auto IV = 1152x640 (no AA)

Guitar Hero 3 = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero Aerosmith = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero World Tour = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero 5 = 1024x576 (no AA)
Jericho (demo) = 996x560 (2x AA)

360: Their resolutions and AA are mostly the same as PS3 here are few.

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600 (2xAA)

Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)
Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA)

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Need proof from the horses mouth?

September 2009

NEWS:

Microsoft lifts 720p Xbox 360 requirement "

Microsoft has reportedly lifted the requirement for 720p resolutions and fullscreen anti-aliasing in Xbox 360 games. Black Rock technical director David Jeffries has revealed that Microsoft adjusted the development requirements for Xbox 360 gamers earlier this year, removing the demand that all games support 720p and fullscreen anti-aliasing. Writing in a guest column for Develop Jeffries revealed that Microsoft had tweaked the development requirements to compensate for a change in HD TV resolutions and to free up developers artistically. "Now we are free to make the trade-off between resolution and image quality as we see fit," wrote Jefferies, who said that another reason for the change was 720p TVs emerging from the likes of Sony and Samsung which run at 1366x768 and not true 1280x720 resolution, meaning that game images were being automatically upscaled. As Jeffries points out though, rather than forcing developers to support different resolutions or forcing them to drop features in order to get smooth framerates at true 720p the adjustments allow developers more freedom to use better graphical effects at lower resolutions. Jeffries, who worked on Black Rock's Pure, revealed that the demand for certain resolutions and surrounding confusion will likely become less of an issue as 1080p becomes more of a standard for consumers and manafacturers. "

Right there shows that they are/were lowering resolution(sub 720) and features on most games to provide better performance. Also here are some more proof of native resolutions

PS3: A nice chunk dont have AA or native 720

Alone in the Dark = 1120x630 (no AA)
Avatar = 1280x692 (QAA, black borders)
Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)

Bioshock = 680p (no AA, blur filter pre-patch)

Brutal Legend = 1152x720 (no AA)
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood = 1152x648 (4x2 custom edge AA)
Conan (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
Dark Sector = 1152x640 (no AA)
Darksiders = 1152x648 (no AA)
Far Cry 2 = 1274x692 (QAA, black borders)
Fracture = 1152x648 (no AA)
Ghostbusters = 960x540 (QAA, pre-patch)

Grand Theft Auto IV = 1152x640 (no AA)

Guitar Hero 3 = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero Aerosmith = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero World Tour = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero 5 = 1024x576 (no AA)
Jericho (demo) = 996x560 (2x AA)

360: Their resolutions and AA are mostly the same as PS3 here are few.

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600 (2xAA)

Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)
Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA)

04dcarraher

Again

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Right there shows that they are lowering resolution(sub 720) and features on most games to provide better performance. lowe0

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Need proof from the horses mouth?

September 2009

NEWS:

Microsoft lifts 720p Xbox 360 requirement "

Microsoft has reportedly lifted the requirement for 720p resolutions and fullscreen anti-aliasing in Xbox 360 games. Black Rock technical director David Jeffries has revealed that Microsoft adjusted the development requirements for Xbox 360 gamers earlier this year, removing the demand that all games support 720p and fullscreen anti-aliasing. Writing in a guest column for Develop Jeffries revealed that Microsoft had tweaked the development requirements to compensate for a change in HD TV resolutions and to free up developers artistically. "Now we are free to make the trade-off between resolution and image quality as we see fit," wrote Jefferies, who said that another reason for the change was 720p TVs emerging from the likes of Sony and Samsung which run at 1366x768 and not true 1280x720 resolution, meaning that game images were being automatically upscaled. As Jeffries points out though, rather than forcing developers to support different resolutions or forcing them to drop features in order to get smooth framerates at true 720p the adjustments allow developers more freedom to use better graphical effects at lower resolutions. Jeffries, who worked on Black Rock's Pure, revealed that the demand for certain resolutions and surrounding confusion will likely become less of an issue as 1080p becomes more of a standard for consumers and manafacturers. "

Right there shows that they are/were lowering resolution(sub 720) and features on most games to provide better performance. Also here are some more proof of native resolutions

PS3: A nice chunk dont have AA or native 720

Alone in the Dark = 1120x630 (no AA)
Avatar = 1280x692 (QAA, black borders)
Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)

Bioshock = 680p (no AA, blur filter pre-patch)

Brutal Legend = 1152x720 (no AA)
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood = 1152x648 (4x2 custom edge AA)
Conan (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
Dark Sector = 1152x640 (no AA)
Darksiders = 1152x648 (no AA)
Far Cry 2 = 1274x692 (QAA, black borders)
Fracture = 1152x648 (no AA)
Ghostbusters = 960x540 (QAA, pre-patch)

Grand Theft Auto IV = 1152x640 (no AA)

Guitar Hero 3 = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero Aerosmith = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero World Tour = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero 5 = 1024x576 (no AA)
Jericho (demo) = 996x560 (2x AA)

360: Their resolutions and AA are mostly the same as PS3 here are few.

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600 (2xAA)

Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)
Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA)

lowe0

Again

I used poor choice in words when i said most, I should have said like 20-30% or a 3rd of games dont run at 720, and should have said that like over a 3rd of games dont use AA.

Im going to try and loo kat this as a neutral, hard i know, as i love PC gaming.

As of now, well into this gen of consoles, you can buy or build a PC that far exceeds the capability of a console for a very very reasonable price. AS of now you can save alot of money on games etc...you know the story.

HOWEVER!!!!!!

When the consoles were 1st released, 360 for example, a PC at that time cost an absolute fortune, if you wanted one that exceeded 360's capability.If you look at those same PC's now they really don't run the newest games that great at high resolution. Many have had to upgrade since then to play games such as Crysis etc at decent graphical levels.

as this gen has progressed PC tech has evolved and what were once high end systems are now low end and are very very cheap. If you want the best it is still very very expensive.

When the next gen is here the cycle wil lstart again, unless they all take the wii route lol.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Again

04dcarraher

I used poor choice in words when i said most, I should have said like 20-30% or a 3rd of games dont run at 720, and should have said that like over a 3rd of games dont use AA.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Right there shows that they are lowering resolution(sub 720) and features on most games to provide better performance. 04dcarraher

Again what does that have to do with my main point? You argued that the majority of quality looking console titles had to cut back on resolution and the factis I can name more that dont.

Uncahrted 2 720p 2xMSAA 30fps

Killzone 2 720p 2xMSAA 30fps

Lost Planet 720p 4xMSAA 60fps equivlent to DX9 mas settings

Devil May Cry 4 720p 2xMSAa 60fps equilvent to pc DX9 max settings

RE5 720p 4xMSAa 30fps equilvent to DX9 pc max settings

Heavnely sword 720p 2xMSAA 30fps

Gears of War 2 720p 2x MSAa equilvnet to DX9 max settings

Mass Effect 2 720p 2x MSAA equilvent to DX9 max settings

Please check the beyond3d.forums if you have any doubts. These games look far superior then any of the crappy pc ports you lsited they run better an they were not downscaled in resolution. No card for 2004 or even 2005 runs those games at equilvent settings are equivent framerate. And even the downscaled versions of multiplats look better then what any 2004 card could run them at as they cant even run them at playable framrerates.

ps. That is just a handful of titles you honestly think Fear or Prey looks better then any of the games above I mentioned or is even remotely close to the same level?

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Again

04dcarraher

I used poor choice in words when i said most, I should have said like 20-30% or a 3rd of games dont run at 720, and should have said that like over a 3rd of games dont use AA.

LOL most those games arent even good looking console titles. You basically take the worst looking console titles and judge the systems by that. Conan an guitar hero lol?REALLY?

[QUOTE="lowe0"] You said "most". You listed 22 PS3 games. Are you asserting that the PS3 has no more than 43 games released for it?

I used poor choice in words when i said most, I should have said like 20-30% or a 3rd of games dont run at 720, and should have said that like over a 3rd of games dont use AA.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] You said "most". You listed 22 PS3 games. Are you asserting that the PS3 has no more than 43 games released for it?

I used poor choice in words when i said most, I should have said like 20-30% or a 3rd of games dont run at 720, and should have said that like over a 3rd of games dont use AA.

LOL most those games arent even good looking console titles. You basically take the worst looking console titles and judge the systems by that. Conan an guitar hero lol?REALLY?

I cant explain this any clearer, Diect x 10 doesnot give a better/clearer/image over Direct x 9 just better looking effects. Then its been proven that a good chunk of console games dont even run at true 720 resolutions with or without AA added. Also do you know why say... oblivion runs better is because of shorter draw distances and all the corner cutting that had to be done even to make the game run at any steady framerate. Also with a game like oblivion the console loads small sections or bubbles of the map to give you the illusion your in a large area when your not, when the Pc version the poor 6600 had to draw a much larger chunk of the map. Consoles are illusion masters when it comes to covering their flaws using every trick in the book. The truth is that if the multplatform games were coded with equal amount of love as they do with the focused platform even the most stubborn people would realize how really limited consoles really are. And even with the vice versa with poor console to pc ports still show that the old gpus can still display better visuals. Even with so called bad pc to console ports should be able to produce as good of an image but they cant. Console gpu's are just modified late 2004 pc gpu based hardware and when the multiplatorm games are done right theres a big enough difference in the visuals between simliar pc based hardware even from the 2004/2005 era. I own a 360 and played on PS3 and have played many games on them, but every Pc version of the games are is 2-4x better in image sharpness to overall detail of textures/graphics in every Pc gpu generation from 2005 and beyond.

04dcarraher

Thats nothing but a boldface lie, the consoles constatnly stream the backrounds in on Oblivon it was put head to head with the 6600 and it simply looked better and ran better. The 6600 couldnt even get a playable framerate with foilage on screen and if anythign oblivon was nothing but a pc port.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

I used poor choice in words when i said most, I should have said like 20-30% or a 3rd of games dont run at 720, and should have said that like over a 3rd of games dont use AA.

04dcarraher

LOL most those games arent even good looking console titles. You basically take the worst looking console titles and judge the systems by that. Conan an guitar hero lol?REALLY?

Post me a link where I ever said that you are lying again and why dont you answer my questions from the previous post. LOL you think Fear and Prey look better then KZ22? LMAO?

I just spec'ed out a gaming PC that I'm going to building and to get a pretty solid build with a 5770 will run you about ~$750. Sure you could go cheaper and possibly even hit the $600 mark with not a ton of drop in your gaming performance NOW, however to have a good upgrade path with the ability to Crossfire you have to spend the extra cash. Point is: PC gaming is more expensive. There's also the fact that to get the cheapest possible price you have to be very hands on, and that requires computer hardware skill. . .plus there's the O.C.ing aspect. PC gaming is simply a bit more tedious. There are however clear benefits to itmythrol

everything you said is a halftruth. that $600 pc will be a drop in performance compared to a top end pc but compared to the consoles its a hige step up. a $400 pc isnt a great gaming pc but itd still be more powerful than a console.

thats the thing that people dont get when they say pc gaming is so expensive.

even spending $100 more than a console will still get you a pc thats more powerful than the consoles. not by a whole lot. but more powerful nonetheless.

a $600 pc is essentially twice as powerful as either console.

and what OCing aspect? most pc gamers dont do it, its not necessary.

it requires computer hardware skills but not your own.

its only more tedious if you make it. thats the other thing. people say pc gaming is so hard and expensive then try to make it so by throwing in all these things that are optional. it doesnt work like that.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

I cant explain this any clearer, Diect x 10 doesnot give a better/clearer/image over Direct x 9 just better looking effects. Then its been proven that a good chunk of console games dont even run at true 720 resolutions with or without AA added. Also do you know why say... oblivion runs better is because of shorter draw distances and all the corner cutting that had to be done even to make the game run at any steady framerate. Also with a game like oblivion the console loads small sections or bubbles of the map to give you the illusion your in a large area when your not, when the Pc version the poor 6600 had to draw a much larger chunk of the map. Consoles are illusion masters when it comes to covering their flaws using every trick in the book. The truth is that if the multplatform games were coded with equal amount of love as they do with the focused platform even the most stubborn people would realize how really limited consoles really are. And even with the vice versa with poor console to pc ports still show that the old gpus can still display better visuals. Even with so called bad pc to console ports should be able to produce as good of an image but they cant. Console gpu's are just modified late 2004 pc gpu based hardware and when the multiplatorm games are done right theres a big enough difference in the visuals between simliar pc based hardware even from the 2004/2005 era. I own a 360 and played on PS3 and have played many games on them, but every Pc version of the games are is 2-4x better in image sharpness to overall detail of textures/graphics in every Pc gpu generation from 2005 and beyond.

TheSterls

Thats nothing but a boldface lie, the consoles constatnly stream the backrounds in on Oblivon it was put head to head with the 6600 and it simply looked better and ran better. The 6600 couldnt even get a playable framerate with foilage on screen and if anythign oblivon was nothing but a pc port.

Plus Oblivion was console focused game so there yourwrong there again.

Ya lol ok a 6600gt runs the game all on medium setting when the console version runs at 1024x6something with a nice blend of low,medium and high settings with all kinds shortcuts such as short draw distances, and shadows smoke at other effects that arent even seen.04dcarraher

seriously stop. you wont be running oblivion on a 7600gt the same as a 360 or ps3 and certainly not a 6600gt. so stop. i had both those cards, oblivion was one game i specifically got my x1950pro for.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Ya lol ok a 6600gt runs the game all on medium setting when the console version runs at 1024x6something with a nice blend of low,medium and high settings with all kinds shortcuts such as short draw distances, and shadows smoke at other effects that arent even seen.

seriously stop. you wont be running oblivion on a 7600gt the same as a 360 or ps3 and certainly not a 6600gt. so stop. i had both those cards, oblivion was one game i specifically got my x1950pro for.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

I cant explain this any clearer, Diect x 10 doesnot give a better/clearer/image over Direct x 9 just better looking effects. Then its been proven that a good chunk of console games dont even run at true 720 resolutions with or without AA added. Also do you know why say... oblivion runs better is because of shorter draw distances and all the corner cutting that had to be done even to make the game run at any steady framerate. Also with a game like oblivion the console loads small sections or bubbles of the map to give you the illusion your in a large area when your not, when the Pc version the poor 6600 had to draw a much larger chunk of the map. Consoles are illusion masters when it comes to covering their flaws using every trick in the book. The truth is that if the multplatform games were coded with equal amount of love as they do with the focused platform even the most stubborn people would realize how really limited consoles really are. And even with the vice versa with poor console to pc ports still show that the old gpus can still display better visuals. Even with so called bad pc to console ports should be able to produce as good of an image but they cant. Console gpu's are just modified late 2004 pc gpu based hardware and when the multiplatorm games are done right theres a big enough difference in the visuals between simliar pc based hardware even from the 2004/2005 era. I own a 360 and played on PS3 and have played many games on them, but every Pc version of the games are is 2-4x better in image sharpness to overall detail of textures/graphics in every Pc gpu generation from 2005 and beyond.

04dcarraher

Thats nothing but a boldface lie, the consoles constatnly stream the backrounds in on Oblivon it was put head to head with the 6600 and it simply looked better and ran better. The 6600 couldnt even get a playable framerate with foilage on screen and if anythign oblivon was nothing but a pc port.

Plus Oblivion was console focused game so there yourwrong there again.

LOl the 360 and PS3 dont run anything at oblivon onlow settings its a mix of medium and high dude your lying and even the mods and hermits dont agree with you just give it a rest .

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Ya lol ok a 6600gt runs the game all on medium setting when the console version runs at 1024x6something with a nice blend of low,medium and high settings with all kinds shortcuts such as short draw distances, and shadows smoke at other effects that arent even seen.04dcarraher

seriously stop. you wont be running oblivion on a 7600gt the same as a 360 or ps3 and certainly not a 6600gt. so stop. i had both those cards, oblivion was one game i specifically got my x1950pro for.

:lol: um im guessing your just a troll at this point so im gonna stop now.

Dont you understand even with my poor 6600gt back in 2005 had effects and more graphics quality then the console version Ive seen it first hand both on 360 and Pc. Im talking about that even 2005 based pc tech can out do the console any day when their done right.04dcarraher

A. that was 2005 when the 6600gt had been out for over a year and the 360 just hit the market.

B.still no. if you can sit there with a straight face and say your 6600gt can run oblivion better than a 360 were done here. youre delusional.

the RSX alone is more powerful than 2 6600gt's. as is the xenos. 2005 saw the x1900 series that series could outdo the consoles the 7600gt and the 6600gt not so much.

The ignorant only stick with consoles.

CoreoVII

In my experience, it's more expensive, unless you pirate.

You are GREATLY underestimating the initial cost and the upgrade cost here. What would $60 every 2 years realistically buy you? Half as much RAM as you actually need, while neglecting CPU, GPU, MOBO, hard drive, optical drives, peripherals wholesale? No dice man.

I love PC gaming but it's certainly an expense.

[QUOTE="mythrol"]I just spec'ed out a gaming PC that I'm going to building and to get a pretty solid build with a 5770 will run you about ~$750. Sure you could go cheaper and possibly even hit the $600 mark with not a ton of drop in your gaming performance NOW, however to have a good upgrade path with the ability to Crossfire you have to spend the extra cash. Point is: PC gaming is more expensive. There's also the fact that to get the cheapest possible price you have to be very hands on, and that requires computer hardware skill. . .plus there's the O.C.ing aspect. PC gaming is simply a bit more tedious. There are however clear benefits to itwashd123

everything you said is a halftruth. that $600 pc will be a drop in performance compared to a top end pc but compared to the consoles its a hige step up. a $400 pc isnt a great gaming pc but itd still be more powerful than a console.

thats the thing that people dont get when they say pc gaming is so expensive.

even spending $100 more than a console will still get you a pc thats more powerful than the consoles. not by a whole lot. but more powerful nonetheless.

a $600 pc is essentially twice as powerful as either console.

and what OCing aspect? most pc gamers dont do it, its not necessary.

it requires computer hardware skills but not your own.

its only more tedious if you make it. thats the other thing. people say pc gaming is so hard and expensive then try to make it so by throwing in all these things that are optional. it doesnt work like that.

My point wasn't to give any half truth. Only my personal experience as I'm currently going through the process of building a gaming PC. Like I said the $600 computer would definitely be more powerful than current consoles but it comes at the cost of not being able to upgrade your computer. To me the main draws for PC gaming is: High graphic detail / improved performance, PC Exclusive games, and the ability to keep one machine that will be able to play games for the next multiple years at high settings. Also the hands-on DIY aspect is appealing.

Consoles don't offer these benefits. However, to fully achieve them I don't think throwing together a $600 pc, or a $500 pc simply to say "Hey look my pc is more powerful than your console." is a SMART thing to do. You box yourself in and basically in my eyes it offers no benefit to console gaming aside from pc exclusives. Also, yes you could simply buy your pc stock and have a decent offering, but again. . .budget pc's will not offer as good of a price / performance ratio as what you could build AND usually box you in upgrade wise. Again, I don't necessarily think that's a smart move unless you have no choice.

You represent PC gaming on the level we're talking about as a completely hands-off experience. Put a disc in and play. There is more involved than that. Especially if your goal is to have max settings on new games. In that regard console gaming is much more consumer friendly. You go home, plug it up, and stick a game in it and it plays. While ease of use has certainly increased with PCs. . . it's still not on the same level as a console.

I would certainly say, if you build your system then you should definitely be OCing it. If for some reason you can't OC it, then I'd have to ask WHY? Again, the entire point of PC gaming is high graphics (or one of the points that gets pushed around the most). If you're really trying to get price / performance at it's best, you plan to OC. Which again, leads to PC gaming either being more tedious and cheaper. Or more expensive. Sure you can throw money at the problem and be more hands off, but that's not what this thread is discussing. It's talking about PC being more expensive than console gaming or not.

There are plenty of great reasons to go with PC gaming (as is indicated by the fact that I'm building a gaming PC). However, pc gaming is more expensive than console gaming. By how much, is up to you.

In my experience, it's more expensive, unless you pirate.

You are GREATLY underestimating the initial cost and the upgrade cost here. What would $60 every 2 years realistically buy you? Half as much RAM as you actually need, while neglecting CPU, GPU, MOBO, hard drive, optical drives, peripherals wholesale? No dice man.

I love PC gaming but it's certainly an expense.

Hahadouken

-You don't always need to update all of your parts.

-You only need to upgrade if you want to max games out.

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]

In my experience, it's more expensive, unless you pirate.

You are GREATLY underestimating the initial cost and the upgrade cost here. What would $60 every 2 years realistically buy you? Half as much RAM as you actually need, while neglecting CPU, GPU, MOBO, hard drive, optical drives, peripherals wholesale? No dice man.

I love PC gaming but it's certainly an expense.

windsquid9000

-You don't always need to update all of your parts.

-You only need to upgrade if you want to max games out.

If you want a pc that has TEH graphics that look better then consoles you cant cheap out.

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]

In my experience, it's more expensive, unless you pirate.

You are GREATLY underestimating the initial cost and the upgrade cost here. What would $60 every 2 years realistically buy you? Half as much RAM as you actually need, while neglecting CPU, GPU, MOBO, hard drive, optical drives, peripherals wholesale? No dice man.

I love PC gaming but it's certainly an expense.

13C

-You don't always need to update all of your parts.

-You only need to upgrade if you want to max games out.

If you want a pc that has TEH graphics that look better then consoles you cant cheap out.

That look better than consoles? You can put that together for a very reasonable price. For the absolute best performance for PC, meaning pushing at resolutions higher than 1080p, then yes, you need to spend money.

Ok lets talk about transistor counts on gpus, more transistor numbers in mean more processing power(speed) not looks because thats depends on memory,

Now the PS3 RSX gpuhas between 222 million to 250 million transistors based on the g70 chipset, multiple sources are conflicted in exact numbers of transistors. plus the RSX only has a 22.4GB/s link to its local memory bandwidth, which is less than 60% of the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7800 GTX which means that performance is cut down to 7600 type buses.

The 360 Xenos has withoutthe 10MB block of embedded DRAM (eDRAM) has around 230 million transistors.

Now the Geforce 6600GT has 144 million transistors

6800GT has 222 million

The 7600gt has around 180 million transistors based on g73 chipset.

7800GTX has 302 million transistors.

And just for the heck of it the 8800 seties has close to a billion transistors

So lets say the RSX say tops off a 250, so its 57% faster then a 6600gt not quite 2x faster as you say, 7600gt is 30% slower then RSX ,andthe RSX14% faster then 6800gt ,then RSX is 20% slower then a 7800GTX , and last a 8800 is nearly 400% faster having almost 4x the amount of transistors.

Now thats the true performance break down between the gpu's . This whole time ive been talking ablout Pc gpu's being able to produce better visuals and graphics over consoles even with same era pc gpu's i havent been talking about performance becauseits irrelevant when the every console version is tailoredto the consoles every need with their limits, when pc versions have a much more broader and multiple configurations that they cant be tailored like the console versions. Them(consoles) have only 512 of total memory usable limits everything they do from resolutions to detail that they can display. Because even if you use a 6600gt or 6800 or even a 7600 "can" produce better looking games because they can have more resources(memory) they can call upon that the consoles cant.

Nvida and ATI high end cards $650 each, i can buy 2 PS3 for the price of one video card. Nuff said.djsifer01

Nvida and ATI high end cards $650 each, i can buy 2 PS3 for the price of one video card. Nuff said.djsifer01

And why are you buying a high-end card? Those are designed solely for people playing above 1080p.

A $200 graphics card will get you to max on pretty much any game out there. Heck, even a sub-$100 9800GT will max you out in games at "console" level resolutions like 1367 x 768.

Nvida and ATI high end cards $650 each, i can buy 2 PS3 for the price of one video card. Nuff said.djsifer01

[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Nvida and ATI high end cards $650 each, i can buy 2 PS3 for the price of one video card. Nuff said.TheSterls

LOL you honeslty think todays high end card will hold a candle to the next gen of consoels :lol:

Your as misinformed as the troll who thinks a 6600gt outperforms the PS3 and 360 .

Nvida and ATI high end cards $650 each, i can buy 2 PS3 for the price of one video card. Nuff said.djsifer01

ATI 5870 - $394.99

So unless you're looking at a 5970, which is a ridiculous amount of overkill... What on Earth are you talking about?

I swear, a thread with this exact title was on here before... but I posted in that one...

Hermits: PC HARDWARE IS EXPENSIVE!

I got a quote, buying all my parts wholesale, with the ability to play Crysis on high, with stock fans and power sources, and could have it built for free: 1300 dollars. Thats a lot of cash.

[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Nvida and ATI high end cards $650 each, i can buy 2 PS3 for the price of one video card. Nuff said.TheSterls

LOL you honeslty think todays high end card will hold a candle to the next gen of consoels :lol:

Your as misinformed as the troll who thinks a 6600gt outperforms the PS3 and 360 .

Mhmm. Console planning takes place years in advance, and many components are set 3/4 of the way through planning. At that point, PC hardware will have progressed, and the current cards out (ATI 5870, 5970 and nVidia's soon to be released 3xx series) will no doubt stand up, or outperform the consoles.

I swear, a thread with this exact title was on here before... but I posted in that one...

Hermits: PC HARDWARE IS EXPENSIVE!

I got a quote, buying all my parts wholesale, with the ability to play Crysis on high, with stock fans and power sources, and could have it built for free: 1300 dollars. Thats a lot of cash.

heysharpshooter

its only expensive if you make it.

ive spent less than that on my pc over the last 7 years and i can max out crysis at 1680x1050.

I swear, a thread with this exact title was on here before... but I posted in that one...

Hermits: PC HARDWARE IS EXPENSIVE!

I got a quote, buying all my parts wholesale, with the ability to play Crysis on high, with stock fans and power sources, and could have it built for free: 1300 dollars. Thats a lot of cash.

heysharpshooter

Sony Optiarc 24X DVD/CD Rewritable Drive Black SATA Model AD-7240S-0B - OEM

Western Digital Caviar Black WD5001AALS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

VisionTek 900286 Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card - Retail

Thermaltake TR2 W0366RU 700W ATX 12V v2.2 Modular Active PFC Power Supply - Retail

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-8500CL5D-4GBPK - Retail

ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 Yorkfield 2.66GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80580Q8400 - Retail

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 1-Pack for System Builders - OEM

ZALMAN CNPS9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler - Retail

COOLER MASTER Centurion 534 RC-534-KKN2-GP Black Aluminum & Mesh bezel / SECC Chassis ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail

Total: $1041.40

That's without even sticking to a strict budget. Go with an AMD processor and you could shave another $100 or so off the total. Even go with a lesser motherboard and save $50 or so.

That will run Crysis on Very High at 1920x1200, no problems.

PC hardware is fairly cheap.

Edit: forgot the case :P