Interesting Find - PC/Xbox360/PS3

[unskilled]

I prefer consoles because I got tired of spending $400 after 2 years for a new video card, $700 after 4 years for a new vid card, processor, and maybe a better PSU by now, and $1500 after 6 years to redo my entire computer to support new socket types just to keep up the hardware capability to play the games. With a console I spend about $600 (including peripherals) one time, then I don't have to worry about it until the next console comes out at least 5 years later.

Yea, FPS will always be better on the PC because of keyboard + mouse, but they also have been and continue to be the most hardware-intensive games on the market.

About new sockets, intel just S.U.C.K.S. They change 1 pin in socket and make new CPUs.
For better performance I overclock, but I don't need to play all games on highest details :P

[DreadStunLock]

Single Players are always best on the highest graphics, but multi-player as you stated is always best for lowest settings, of course descluding SCCT, where you can EMF ghost like a total biotch, and not giving a damn explaining that to the newcomers.

[unskilled]

In singleplayer I don't need that much FPS like in Multi. So I don't care that i have 25 or 120 FPS
games are smooth enought with 25-30 fps.

[Spekkio]

Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.


PS:(My 500th post)

Define quality. I am still playing games at 60 fps on my 4 (5?) year old PS3. I don't have to spend hours installing an expensive heat sink and experimenting with OC my processor and vid card to find the 'sweet spot' that gets me an extra 3 fps without frying my motherboard. When my PC turned 5 years old it couldn't even run some current games, and the ones it could got like 20 fps on the lowest settings, which made no sense because that often looked worse than cranked up settings of older games that ran better (for the record, I can't stand playing current gen games at less than 50 fps, since they are designed to run optimally at 60+).

Also, consider the cost vs. gain. To maintain a PC capable of playing modern games at 60 fps with moderate or better graphics settings would require approximately $2500 every six years. To do the same on a console requires about 1/5 of that. Once I realized this, I decided that the 500% cost premium wasn't worth it to play video games, even though I prefer FPS's on mouse+keyboard and enjoy some RTS games. Besides, the majority of PC games nowadays are made for consoles and then ported to the PC with a small graphics upgrade.

[AgentX_003]

Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.


PS:(My 500th post)

Define quality. I am still playing games at 60 fps on my 4 (5?) year old PS3. I don't have to spend hours installing an expensive heat sink and experimenting with OC my processor and vid card to find the 'sweet spot' that gets me an extra 3 fps without frying my motherboard. When my PC turned 5 years old it couldn't even run some current games, and the ones it could got like 20 fps on the lowest settings, which made no sense because that often looked worse than cranked up settings of older games that ran better (for the record, I can't stand playing current gen games at less than 50 fps, since they are designed to run optimally at 60+).

Also, consider the cost vs. gain. To maintain a PC capable of playing modern games at 60 fps with moderate or better graphics settings would require approximately $2500 every six years. To do the same on a console requires about 1/5 of that. Once I realized this, I decided that the 500% cost premium wasn't worth it to play video games, even though I prefer FPS's on mouse+keyboard and enjoy some RTS games. Besides, the majority of PC games nowadays are made for consoles and then ported to the PC with a small graphics upgrade.

Sir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of

a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.


When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars  and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.


Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars  an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core  but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.

NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?

Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler  didnt used to have support for the having  one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.

[Farley4Fan]

a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.

lol not even viable?  This is why I say "don't crucify me" when I say I bought a console version of a game over the PC version - because a lot of people are just too proud of preferring PC's.

[Spark Mandriller]

NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?

ketsui on pc
ketsui on console

i know what i'd take dude

[unskilled]

Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.


PS:(My 500th post)

Define quality. I am still playing games at 60 fps on my 4 (5?) year old PS3. I don't have to spend hours installing an expensive heat sink and experimenting with OC my processor and vid card to find the 'sweet spot' that gets me an extra 3 fps without frying my motherboard. When my PC turned 5 years old it couldn't even run some current games, and the ones it could got like 20 fps on the lowest settings, which made no sense because that often looked worse than cranked up settings of older games that ran better (for the record, I can't stand playing current gen games at less than 50 fps, since they are designed to run optimally at 60+).

Also, consider the cost vs. gain. To maintain a PC capable of playing modern games at 60 fps with moderate or better graphics settings would require approximately $2500 every six years. To do the same on a console requires about 1/5 of that. Once I realized this, I decided that the 500% cost premium wasn't worth it to play video games, even though I prefer FPS's on mouse+keyboard and enjoy some RTS games. Besides, the majority of PC games nowadays are made for consoles and then ported to the PC with a small graphics upgrade.

Sir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of

a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.


When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars  and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.


Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars  an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core  but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.

NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?

Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler  didnt used to have support for the having  one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.

Only idiots buy PCs from alienware or dell... it's better to pick any PC forum and let ppl make your PC build for price you want.
Cheaper, better, cooler.

[Spekkio]

Sir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.

When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars  and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.

Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars  an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core  but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.

NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?

Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler  didnt used to have support for the having  one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.

Agent, talking to you is like talking to a 3 year old with down syndrome, but for the sake of continuing discussion in this thread, I'll bite...

Firstly, I'm glad that you are satisfied with your current budget PC. As I'm sure you're aware, though, there are a lot of other components in a PC for which you didn't factor in the cost -- namely, the monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound card, speakers/headphones, motherboard, and case.

I'll throw you a bone that many of these components are 1-time purchases that last longer than the lifetime of the components you mentioned in your post. But people have to buy them at some point, and they will break or become obsolete at some point, too.

I got my figures from assuming someone builds the most cost-effective PC from scratch, then upgrades the GPU, then the GPU + Processor, then complete system rebuild. That typically costs what I quoted, and that also assumes the user will find some sales on the 'net. By cost effective, I mean purchasing components that are in the 'sweet spot' of maximizing performance gain for price increase before you start spending hundreds of dollars extra for small gains. It also assumes that you search the 'net for deals and sales, which are often easy to find.

You don't have to do this, but if you don't then you start putting up with lower framerates and reduced graphics capability. If you choose not to upgrade your PC frequently, you are defeating the purpose of PC gaming in the first place, since you are upgrading your hardware's capabilities no more often than the life of a console (and still spending about 2x as much for gaming platform). However, unlike console software companies, many PC gaming companies cater to the highest common denominator. So while companies continue to optimize performance for Xbox 360/PS3 games to maintain 60 fps and look as good as possible, companies making PC games will leave your 'old' PC in the dust. After all, PC software companies are trying to market to those new shadowing techniques and advanced physics engines running in 1080p.

To address the budget system: Your main argument is that consoles cannot match the processing and graphics power of a PC. That is true, so long as you buy the appropriate components. A budget PC won't accomplish this until well into a console's life. Additionally, you will have to upgrade these components more often to keep up, or you'll have to sacrifice frame rate and may not be able to play games after a couple of years altogether. Making either of these sacrifices is defeating the purpose of PC gaming, according to your own argument, and continuously upgrading budget components ends up costing more in the long run.

There is also the issue that PC gaming isn't user-friendly. Unlike console games where you put in a DVD and press start, PC games require an install. After that, you have to go through a relatively extensive setup in order to optimize the game's settings for your PC. While many games have a 'set optimum' feature in the options, my experience with them is that they don't work very well. For example, DOW II maxes out the settings when I hit set optimum because its algorithm merely looks at the GPU memory, RAM, and processing power. It ignores the fact that I have a two-year-old mobile GPU, which is not capable of running the game in double-digit FPS maxed out. That translates into a time-intensive trial-and-error process of changing settings and loading the game to find the balance between graphics and frame rate that I desire.

This all adds up to the fact that PC gaming isn't nearly as popular as console gaming. While I don't care about popularity on the surface, what I do care about is that software companies will put less effort into a medium that has a lower potential for sales. It's a simple case of economics. With FPS's now popular on consoles, it is now the norm and not the exception that games are designed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. Because of this, PC versions of games are less stable and more buggy out of the box. Some companies are good at patching their games, some are not. But the fact that PC gamers have grown to accept the fact that their game will require extensive patching in order to reach a level of quality that they expect is amazing to me. What's more amazing to me is that PC gamers still cling to their medium in the face of becoming the bastard step-child of gaming.

I have nothing against PC gaming, mind you. I am not a console fan-boy. I have spent more hours than I like to admit playing SCCT on the PC. I still prefer a mouse+keyboard to play FPS any day over a joystick, and RTS are simply unplayable with a controller. I agree with B-3A that the modding and networking capability of PC gaming is unmatched. However, there came a time where I realized that PC gaming is not cost-effective for me. It was probably around the time where I realized that I wanted to move out of my parents' house and wanted more possessions than just a fancy PC, and sometimes liked playing a game with someone else in the same room. If you like to spend the extra money for the better graphics power and playing on a keyboard + mouse, then great. Personally, all I want to do is be able to sit on my couch and enjoy my entertainment without spending hours on upgrading my system, 'tweaking' all the games default.ini's to get an extra 2 fps, and working through the myriad of compatibility issues that exist because programmers have the impossible task of making a game work perfectly for thousands of possible PC hardware setups. And I certainly don't want to spend 3-5x as much money on a gaming platform to put up with all this.

The 'better graphics' argument is the main disadvantage of PC gaming. It's the constant money pit to keep up with the next software designer's art project because he designed his game to work optimally on the $400 GPU that came out 8 months after the previous $400 GPU that makes PC gaming so costly, and it's what ultimately turned me off to it. You can make a lot of arguments why PC gaming is better, but graphics isn't why.

PS: I realize that some PC games can be played with a controller, but that assumes the game was designed to make proper use of it. Many PC games aren't.

[puuusianka]

Sir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.

When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars  and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.

Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars  an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core  but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.

NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?

Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler  didnt used to have support for the having  one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.

Agent, talking to you is like talking to a 3 year old with down syndrome, but for the sake of continuing discussion in this thread, I'll bite...

Firstly, I'm glad that you are satisfied with your current budget PC. As I'm sure you're aware, though, there are a lot of other components in a PC for which you didn't factor in the cost -- namely, the monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound card, speakers/headphones, motherboard, and case.

I'll throw you a bone that many of these components are 1-time purchases that last longer than the lifetime of the components you mentioned in your post. But people have to buy them at some point, and they will break or become obsolete at some point, too.

I got my figures from assuming someone builds the most cost-effective PC from scratch, then upgrades the GPU, then the GPU + Processor, then complete system rebuild. That typically costs what I quoted, and that also assumes the user will find some sales on the 'net. By cost effective, I mean purchasing components that are in the 'sweet spot' of maximizing performance gain for price increase before you start spending hundreds of dollars extra for small gains. It also assumes that you search the 'net for deals and sales, which are often easy to find.

You don't have to do this, but if you don't then you start putting up with lower framerates and reduced graphics capability. If you choose not to upgrade your PC frequently, you are defeating the purpose of PC gaming in the first place, since you are upgrading your hardware's capabilities no more often than the life of a console (and still spending about 2x as much for gaming platform). However, unlike console software companies, many PC gaming companies cater to the highest common denominator. So while companies continue to optimize performance for Xbox 360/PS3 games to maintain 60 fps and look as good as possible, companies making PC games will leave your 'old' PC in the dust. After all, PC software companies are trying to market to those new shadowing techniques and advanced physics engines running in 1080p.

To address the budget system: Your main argument is that consoles cannot match the processing and graphics power of a PC. That is true, so long as you buy the appropriate components. A budget PC won't accomplish this until well into a console's life. Additionally, you will have to upgrade these components more often to keep up, or you'll have to sacrifice frame rate and may not be able to play games after a couple of years altogether. Making either of these sacrifices is defeating the purpose of PC gaming, according to your own argument, and continuously upgrading budget components ends up costing more in the long run.

There is also the issue that PC gaming isn't user-friendly. Unlike console games where you put in a DVD and press start, PC games require an install. After that, you have to go through a relatively extensive setup in order to optimize the game's settings for your PC. While many games have a 'set optimum' feature in the options, my experience with them is that they don't work very well. For example, DOW II maxes out the settings when I hit set optimum because its algorithm merely looks at the GPU memory, RAM, and processing power. It ignores the fact that I have a two-year-old mobile GPU, which is not capable of running the game in double-digit FPS maxed out. That translates into a time-intensive trial-and-error process of changing settings and loading the game to find the balance between graphics and frame rate that I desire.

This all adds up to the fact that PC gaming isn't nearly as popular as console gaming. While I don't care about popularity on the surface, what I do care about is that software companies will put less effort into a medium that has a lower potential for sales. It's a simple case of economics. With FPS's now popular on consoles, it is now the norm and not the exception that games are designed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. Because of this, PC versions of games are less stable and more buggy out of the box. Some companies are good at patching their games, some are not. But the fact that PC gamers have grown to accept the fact that their game will require extensive patching in order to reach a level of quality that they expect is amazing to me. What's more amazing to me is that PC gamers still cling to their medium in the face of becoming the bastard step-child of gaming.

I have nothing against PC gaming, mind you. I am not a console fan-boy. I have spent more hours than I like to admit playing SCCT on the PC. I still prefer a mouse+keyboard to play FPS any day over a joystick, and RTS are simply unplayable with a controller. However, there came a time where I realized that PC gaming is not cost-effective. It was probably around the time where I realized that I wanted to move out of my parents' house and wanted more possessions than just a fancy PC. If you are okay with that and like to spend the extra money for the better graphics power and playing on a keyboard + mouse, then great. Personally, all I want to do is be able to sit on my couch and enjoy my entertainment without spending hours on upgrading my system, 'tweaking' all the games default.ini's to get an extra 2 fps, and working through the myriad of compatibility issues that exist because programmers have the impossible task of making a game work perfectly for thousands of possible PC hardware setups. And I certainly don't want to spend 3-5x the amount of money I would on a console to deal with all that.

PS: I realize that some PC games can be played with a controller, but that assumes the game was designed to make proper use of it. Many PC games aren't.

WOW I managed to get to the end of this post! Man you are so productive! Maybe you would like to write some compositions for my english lessons. I have already written so many of them that I got bored of it.

Pls answer as fast as possible!!!

Yours Faithfully
         
     Pusiek

[Spekkio]

Well, after working over 100 hours this week, I decided to indulge myself in a conversation about a hobby I enjoy... if that's okay with you, of course.

[puuusianka]

Wow that was fast... Just kidding ofc. Well according to your post you didn't mention the price of the PC games which are twice cheaper then console ones. (or maybe i missed it somewhere?)

[Spekkio]

Wow that was fast... Just kidding ofc. Well according to your post you didn't mention the price of the PC games which are twice cheaper then console ones. (or maybe i missed it somewhere?)

Depends on the game. Most of the blockbusters are only $10 cheaper. Also, Amazon.com pwns for buying DVD's, Blu-Rays, and games on sale.

[Farley4Fan]

Puuu, I just spent 60 bucks on the regular edition of SC2.  And most other games are only 10 dollars cheaper. 

[puuusianka]

Ell that's USA farley. Here in poland we have usual price for PC game 99 zÃ...‚ and for PS it's usually 199 zÃ...‚. I guess we're not the only one with such prices