The Cost - PC vs Console Gaming?

Magill

Thank **** for that... my head was about 2 more andy posts from exploding..

aN.Droid

Andy!! wrote: »

All the proof we need, folks.

Dressing up a 'typo' as 'misinformed information'.

Glad you did that to yourself Limericks. Showed you bias. I dont think kissing butt will help with the mods either. Well, it might with one...

Sigh, that's that then. I have reached the end of my rope with this one.

Your misinformed information was the fact that games must not be able to be played decently on hardware that is 1/4 the cost of the most recommended chip here which is completely 100000% wrong.

You sir are the most infuriating person I have come across on this website and if you where struck by lightning and blown to smithereens I don't think you would be missed. You are so misinformed and stuck in your own little bubble of what you say must be right you can't read a post correctly and form an informed logically constructed answer to it.

And since I am getting an infraction for this post anyway I'll go ahead and say it.

Fúck you. You ruined this thread.

I'll take that infraction now mods.

Overheal

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeIiJkf9nCE

Slightly higher res than the consoles though I'd imagine it could be pushed further if the settings were lowered.

Average 32 FPS which again is slightly higher than consoles for a much better looking game.

Obviously I have no way of verifying if this indeed is running on the stated hardware, it's the internet afterall where guys are guys, girls are guys and kids are gardaí. However, if true it does add credence to Limerick's spec.

Depends on the game, and most console type games are fine with this. However try to get an 8 player 200 supply game of Starcraft II going on and well, you're going to die. In those types of games the load is on the CPU processing locations and hit detections and healthbars and other game mechanics. In most FPS games it's between 16 and 32 player driven units, and much fewer dynamic pieces rolling about; the load is primarily on the visuals and keeping them smooth. Shooter with jumpy frames is not a shooter you are going to survive in.

The argument is a little different when it comes to Laptops. You won't find a G930 configured with a good GPU to support it. I'd like to know how the AMD Fusion APUs are going though.

If you stick to Console titles the G930 is fine, but for instance you get into PC-centric games like the RTS genre and you're going to find they are built to take advantage of less confined hardware.

Retr0gamer

Limericks warned, I think he knows why. Lets just get on with the discussion guys and gals.

Kiith

I'm surprised the thread lasted as long as it did. We got a good 100 posts before it descended into madness. That's got to be a record for a pc/console thead :P

aN.Droid

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Limericks warned, I think he knows why. Lets just get on with the discussion guys and gals.

Phew, feel much better after getting that off my chest.

So, lets get this back on track.

I feel with the new generation of consoles coming out with the wii u out now and the new sony and mincrosoft hardware being released in the next year or two which will likely have huge launch price tags and the fact that pc hardware is at a low point it has never been better to get into PC gaming.

With PC gaming you open yourself up to not only the next generation of gaming on a platform you are familiar with but also years and years of backlog games including (legally) emulated console games from the past.

You get so much more for you money when it comes to a PC.

For anyone on the fence I highly recommend you go the PC route!

Antar Bolaeisk

Limericks wrote: »

I feel with the new generation of consoles coming out with the wii u out now and the new sony and mincrosoft hardware being released in the next year or two which will likely have huge launch price tags and the fact that pc hardware is at a low point it has never been better to get into PC gaming.

Let's just hope it continues that way. AMD aren't in great shape and Intel are rumoured to be going down the BGA (Ball Grid Array) route for post-haswell releases which means the processor is literally soldered in to the motherboard. Desktop gaming as we know it could become a thing of the past.

uberpixie

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Let's just hope it continues that way. AMD aren't in great shape and Intel are rumoured to be going down the BGA (Ball Grid Array) route for post-haswell releases which means the processor is literally soldered in to the motherboard. Desktop gaming as we know it could become a thing of the past.

Not just yet....

Most folk when building only end up buying one cpu which they never replace. Anyone going Intel over the last while would have ended up buying a new motherboard & cpu and the same time due to Intel's constant socket changes. Most folk buy a cpu and sit on it never replacing it.

This will greatly affect the budget buyers who buy a cheap cpu and then upgrade it to a better one later when prices fall greatly.

Intel will no doubt be willing to flog a enthusiast e.g. bloody expensive line that will allow cpu upgrades.

I would be more worried if Intel stopped allowing graphic card upgrades :-)

ShadowHearth

lol sorry, i had to peak ( i am weak okay?! ) in and when i peaked in, i just sow the Ban news. i honestly loled.

as for those new intel CPUs, we had that conversation already in building pc forum. So far info is very low and some articles trying to make a shock factor. in reality only low budget stuff might be soldered in and all the medish/high stuff will still separate. too many mobo manufacturers will get pissed off if intel will try to pull that off.
Even if they will stupid enough to make it for all CPUs. then AMD will become a clear winner and get some head start before intel pulls its head out of the arse and goes back in to normal separate mode.

I have to say i agree with some mentioned stuff, where mostly people buy CPU/mobo combo and stick with it for generation. then when it gets outdated, just go with new mobo/cpu combo.

cherryghost

IngazZagni wrote: »

I'm a relatively casual gamer in that I could go a couple months without playing a game. For this reason it's a no brainer that a console is better to have than a PC, and why I play most games on PS3 over a 360 (I have both) because I didn't want to be paying for online when I rarely use it but its nice to be there.

For sure a new beefy PC will be able to play games with better graphics than consoles but I don't want to be worrying do I have the best components in my PC to play the game at max settings and then having to update them every so often. Sure just even reading the Far Cry 3 thread even those with the beefiest PC's are having framerate issues.

Just to note Far Cry 3 drops to a sping-tingling 20FPS on the 360 anyway, when PC users have framerate issues, it means we can't hit 60 :P

yimrsg

PC games retail for less than console games but they've little to no resale value. Console games have that resale value and as a consequence have a huge second hand market. Some makers have tried to restrict the second hand market by using an online code such as BF3 & UFC. The consoles are slightly more expensive per game but you get to decide what you want to do with it, whether to exchange it, cash it in or loan it to a mate. With a pc game you're more locked in to your purchase. Here's hoping that the EU sorts it out.

I can't see a conclusion being reached here, there's far too many variables on both sides of the debate to declare a winner over which is cheaper. Ultimately it's down to your individual choice and preferences.

Play the games you want, how you want and f**k the begrudgers.

Overheal

yimrsg wrote: »

PC games retail for less than console games but they've little to no resale value. Console games have that resale value and as a consequence have a huge second hand market.

Depends, wildly. A game you bought for $60 might resell for $10 or less. Thats been the case since forever, and even applies to the classics market which I have available a couple miles south at my local flea market, which is littered with 16 and 32 bit console games of old. Aside from a few smash hit titles, they all sell for muck. The exceptions are things like new in box Mario All Stars and Mario RPGs, you can regularly find those retailing for their original price or near it. Bargain bins are regularly littered with second rate games though.

You can use this to support the cost of gaming argument for consoles but it depends on the titles. Argue with my taste all you like, but Zone of the Enders 2, 2nd hand was €5 less than new for over a year after its release. Legend of Dragoon was much the same way and is a good example of something that's hard to find, since it was only ever printed in a fairly limited run. Same is actually true of Mario RPG. The advantage in PC gaming is the titles far less frequently get pulled from sale, and their prices just diminish to the point where they are a euro or two, or included for free with the purchase of a newer sequel. Even online shopping for old console titles can be hampered by shipping costs.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Holy f**k, I've started a monster thread here, and apart from some little fires breaking out, it's being good.

I was in the shticks at the homestead for the weekend, only have the chance to reply now.

Firstly I would say that we're all gamers and enjoy games, there shouldn't be any e-penis measuring when it comes to the whole PC, various consoles debate.

From my reading of the thread it appears that which platform suits a gamer is very much down to how much they play games and personal preferences.

Gaming PCs appear to be the best bet I think if you're a heavy gamer. The games are generally cheaper and the upgrades needed will appear better value (i.e. how much your new graphics cards costs per hour played in the first year after buying it for example).

Me, I'd like to be a heavy gamer but unfortunately I can't find the time between work, socializing and other hobbies. I spend probably an average of 4-5 hours a week gaming. Although I hope to free up more time in the future. For me a console then seems best, the "capital" investments are lower (the console and accessories) and although the "running costs" are higher (the games) when you're not gaming for long periods and therefore not buying games it's not too bad.

I have been incredibly lucky too that my 360 (manufactured in Nov 2005 according to the sticker) bought in December 2005 is still going. Admittedly it did get sent away under warranty once to get both the RROD solved and a new DVD drive fitted (maybe around 2007). I do wonder if I was a heavy gamer would it have long given up the ghost!

On the talk about making a PC last I have a PC that I put together in 2004 still going strong (Pentium 4 3.2Ghz OC'ed to 3.5, 2GB of RAM, 128MB ATI 9800 Pro card). I recently wiped XP off it and installed Lubuntu. Using it mainly as a torrent machine it's nice and speedy with Lubuntu.

I could very easily be a PC gaming though if I get to speed more time playing games. My love of tinkering with PCs and my background as a Software Engineer means I don't have a problem (or fear) of building and upgrading machines. Maybe I need to increasing my gaming time so I can justify PC gaming?!

So... my opinion from reading the responses is if you're a heavy gamer a PC appears to be a no brainer, but the less you play the more complicated the PC or console debate appears to become.

Varik

Overheal wrote: »

Depends, wildly. A game you bought for $60 might resell for $10 or less. Thats been the case since forever, and even applies to the classics market which I have available a couple miles south at my local flea market, which is littered with 16 and 32 bit console games of old. Aside from a few smash hit titles, they all sell for muck. The exceptions are things like new in box Mario All Stars and Mario RPGs, you can regularly find those retailing for their original price or near it. Bargain bins are regularly littered with second rate games though.

You can use this to support the cost of gaming argument for consoles but it depends on the titles. Argue with my taste all you like, but Zone of the Enders 2, 2nd hand was €5 less than new for over a year after its release. Legend of Dragoon was much the same way and is a good example of something that's hard to find, since it was only ever printed in a fairly limited run. Same is actually true of Mario RPG. The advantage in PC gaming is the titles far less frequently get pulled from sale, and their prices just diminish to the point where they are a euro or two, or included for free with the purchase of a newer sequel. Even online shopping for old console titles can be hampered by shipping costs.

By his mention of BF3 & UFC I don't think he was referring to selling retro games years after release.

Got Skyrim in November on day one for €43 and traded it in in march for €35.

ScumLord

hightower1 wrote: »

Why are PC gamers such utter knobs about these things?

Because technically, the PC is better. Everyone can argue back and forth about preference but when it boils down to the specs PC wins.

Consoles are even losing their convenience trump. With the advent of SSDs PCs are lightening quick to start up. I'd say quicker than consoles.

If I want to play a game that's installed on my PC I can be playing it in under 2 minutes from pressing the on button on the PC. A PC with an SSD will boot in under a minute double click the icon on the desktop and because your doing very little loading off a disk the game loads much quicker.

Pcs can be small form factor, remote controlled and probably have a wider range of controllers available. The PC is fixing all it's flaws and becoming a proper media centre.

Consoles will find it hard to compete because both Microsoft and Sony are always going to be stuck with having to provide all the services themselves and then needing to make money out of those services. The PC demands that the services be excellent or someone will come along and do it for free.

Genghiz Cohen

ScumLord wrote: »

Consoles are even losing their convenience trump. With the advent of SSDs PCs are lightening quick to start up. I'd say quicker than consoles.

If I want to play a game that's installed on my PC I can be playing it in under 2 minutes from pressing the on button on the PC. A PC with an SSD will boot in under a minute double click the icon on the desktop and because your doing very little loading off a disk the game loads much quicker.

I was downloading Dishonored there the other day from Steam while playing Arma 2 Wasteland mod with a few of the lads from here. I'd like to see a console do that.

SeantheMan

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I was downloading Dishonored there the other day from Steam while playing Arma 2 Wasteland mod with a few of the lads from here. I'd like to see a console do that.

I was alt-tabbing and looking a pics of jabbers while joining a server in BF3 while talking to a friend on Skype and listening to my own music :rolleyes:

See a console do that too ? :P

Deano7788

Out of curiosity how much would it cost to build a PC that would at least match the leaked specs for the new Xbox (or ideally beat). I've never been a PC gamer and don't have the money currently to invest in 1 (PhD student) but would be looking into it in a year or 2, thanks largely to some of the posters here (except for 1 obvious one) and was curious as to the price of a machine at this level currently (obviously it would likely be cheaper when I actually go about it).

Tar.Aldarion

What are the specs?

RADIUS

Deano7788 wrote: »

Out of curiosity how much would it cost to build a PC that would at least match the leaked specs for the new Xbox (or ideally beat). I've never been a PC gamer and don't have the money currently to invest in 1 (PhD student) but would be looking into it in a year or 2, thanks largely to some of the posters here (except for 1 obvious one) and was curious as to the price of a machine at this level currently (obviously it would likely be cheaper when I actually go about it).

As I said before I put together a refurbished PC for €230 that absolutely kills the PS3 or Xbox360 on specs. Just buy a 3 year old PC with a high end dual or quad CPU off of adverts.ie , gumtree or the like. Then buy a second hand gaming Nvidia card and buy more RAM if needed, and enjoy.

I had a decent PC that died one day and I needed another in a pinch (For college), so I went the second hand route. With the idea to buy a new one when I had the chance. Fact is, the second hand one is so good that I haven't even thought of buying a new one.

I am off to enjoy Planetside 2 on my cheap PC.

As for the new Xbox. I am certain that when it comes out I can knock together a better PC for less.

Burgo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What are the specs?

Have proper specs been released yet? would be interested to see what they are myself.

NTMK

Burgo wrote: »

Have proper specs been released yet? would be interested to see what they are myself.

PS4 (orbis) rumoured specs are
AMD A8-3850
1 gb 7670 @ 1ghz
8gb Ram

NG Xbox
Intel Ivy-bridge/haswell 8 core or 4 ht cores
Nvidia GPU (7670/7770 equivelent
8gb Ram
but ive heard a lot of reports the Xbox will be amd based( same as Ps4)

the 8gb ram is a Dev request so id say thats a guarantee after the skyrim problems
DX11 will be used

the 8 core is doubtful as unless haswell drops temps it wont fit into the thermal envelope

Retr0gamer

Remember as well that since it's a fixed architecture and hardware set up that it will outperform PC's with the same specs.

runawaybishop

gizmo wrote: »

It's probably worth bearing in mind that "equivalent" preformance with a console is 30fps running at 720p. If someone had bought a Core2Duo E6600 back around 2006 which was the CPU to get, then with a Geforce 280 (admittedly a later card) they'd have hit ~40fps at 1680x1050 with medium detail. With an appropriate card from the time I think a console-like experience could have been maintained till now in the majority of cases.

I'm still using my e6600 that i bought in 2007, swapped out the gfx card though a year ago \:D/

ScumLord

NTMK wrote: »

PS4 (orbis) rumoured specs are
AMD A8-3850
1 gb 7670 @ 1ghz
8gb Ram

NG Xbox
Intel Ivy-bridge/haswell 8 core or 4 ht cores
Nvidia GPU (7670/7770 equivelent
8gb Ram
but ive heard a lot of reports the Xbox will be amd based( same as Ps4)

the 8gb ram is a Dev request so id say thats a guarantee after the skyrim problems
DX11 will be used

the 8 core is doubtful as unless haswell drops temps it wont fit into the thermal envelope

Those specs look pretty decent. What I want more than anything is consoles that have at least caught up to the advances PCs have made. The major consoles lack of grunt has been holding back the PC because the money's in consoles, that's the focus and PC gaming is an after thought. If all 3 are on a more level pegging it would be better for everybody.

Overheal

My 1055t is about as far as I can take my socket. I have a known overclock for it I just choose not to use, it's got years of life left. Right now all six cores spend their day just folding proteins for fun and science.

gizmo

ScumLord wrote: »

Because technically, the PC is better. Everyone can argue back and forth about preference but when it boils down to the specs PC wins.

Being right doesn't mean one has a free pass to be a knob about it.

ScumLord wrote: »

Consoles are even losing their convenience trump. With the advent of SSDs PCs are lightening quick to start up. I'd say quicker than consoles.

If I want to play a game that's installed on my PC I can be playing it in under 2 minutes from pressing the on button on the PC. A PC with an SSD will boot in under a minute double click the icon on the desktop and because your doing very little loading off a disk the game loads much quicker.

Pcs can be small form factor, remote controlled and probably have a wider range of controllers available. The PC is fixing all it's flaws and becoming a proper media centre.

The PC may be fixing its flaws on a hardware and usability level but you've also just highlighted why there's still a significant gap for console only gamers to cross if they wanted to make the PC their primary system.

Deano7788 wrote: »

Out of curiosity how much would it cost to build a PC that would at least match the leaked specs for the new Xbox (or ideally beat). I've never been a PC gamer and don't have the money currently to invest in 1 (PhD student) but would be looking into it in a year or 2, thanks largely to some of the posters here (except for 1 obvious one) and was curious as to the price of a machine at this level currently (obviously it would likely be cheaper when I actually go about it).

Right now based on the leaked specs? I'd say around a grand minimum to be sure, it's too early to say for certain though. I certainly wouldn't be looking at building a new gaming rig now if I wanted it to last for more than two years with an upgrade path. As it happens, E3 will be hitting around the same time as Intel release their new architecture next year so we'll get a much clearer picture then.

ScumLord wrote: »

Those specs look pretty decent. What I want more than anything is consoles that have at least caught up to the advances PCs have made. The major consoles lack of grunt has been holding back the PC because the money's in consoles, that's the focus and PC gaming is an after thought. If all 3 are on a more level pegging it would be better for everybody.

Completely agree. It's been rather infuriating to watch PC ports this generation be released in such a half-arsed manner. I'm not even talking about monumental amounts of extra work being put into them, simply taking advantage of some of the inherent strengths of the platform would be enough.

This won't change until, as you put it, the money returns to the platform though and while the console audience will still be significant in the coming generation, have a look through this thread and see how many people endorsed the use of keysites, Steam sales and waiting around for free and incredibly cheaper games as plus points for the platform. That, I fear, is a problem which will be even harder to solve in the future.

Deano7788

gizmo wrote: »

Right now based on the leaked specs? I'd say around a grand minimum to be sure, it's too early to say for certain though. I certainly wouldn't be looking at building a new gaming rig now if I wanted it to last for more than two years with an upgrade path. As it happens, E3 will be hitting around the same time as Intel release their new architecture next year so we'll get a much clearer picture then.

Thanks . I wouldn't be going about it for another year or 2 anyway and that sounds like a good time to do so.

NTMK

ScumLord wrote: »

Those specs look pretty decent. What I want more than anything is consoles that have at least caught up to the advances PCs have made. The major consoles lack of grunt has been holding back the PC because the money's in consoles, that's the focus and PC gaming is an after thought. If all 3 are on a more level pegging it would be better for everybody.

Im just happy they're both using what are pc standards in regular cpu architectures and DX11 because the lack of the Cell and opengl means there will be less time spent trying to optimise for 3/4 completely different platforms and more time developing the game

danthefan

Just on the RAM of the next-gen consoles, from what I've read it's very unlikely to ship with 8GB. They give the dev kits more RAM for whatever reason. The PS3 only has 256 MB RAM for example.