PC Gaming, too expensive!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


My 7600GT can support a lot of games at 1680x1050! Come on dude, live a little!
 
I've been a PC guy all my life...had the Commodore VIC-20, then the Commodore 64 and the 128 after that. But I have always been a buyer, not a builder, which has been expensive for me. The Commodore's were all bought for my brother and I by our parents...after that it was all me. First it was a Gateway with a 486 and 1X CD-ROM...everyone was SO JEALOUS! Haha! Then, years later, a Dell...then another Dell (hate Dell)...then built my own with a friend's help...then an Alienware (sigh). Now I am, for the first time, going to be building my own SOLO for my kids...I am going to stick with my Alienware (sigh) for another year...this build is going to replace the one I handed down to my kids that was built in 2001. Depending how this solo build goes I am committing myself to build all future PC's and never buy another pre-built again. Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

I have been a "hardcore" (sort-of) PC gamer all my life. I love PC's...and always hated consoles. I never had any interest in them. Then my friend got Tomb Raider (yes, the first one) for the PS (yes, the first one). I was wowed but not enough to get a console. Ended up getting my oldest son (he was my ONLY son at the time) a PS2 though. He loved gaming on the PC but all his friends had PS2's (because, he said, their parents couldn't afford a PC). I still couldn't get into it though. Then I had a good friend get the XBOX (yes, the first one) and go on and on and on about HALO. Well, my brother got a great opportunity to get a great deal on the new 360 when they first came out so I said what the heck...then the same great opportunity for the PS3.

So believe it or not, I know have the two PC's, the XBOX 360, and the PS3. My wife and three kids (that is how far the fam has come) are ALL gamers...they use all of the above, as for me, I'm still mainly a PC guy but love the 360...and here's why...(this was ultimately the point of my post):

I buy the game, take the game out of the box, I put it in the 360, and I play it. As a long time PC guy, there is just something so damn refreshing about that! From dealing with playing "TELENGARD" on the tape deck (yes, the games came on actual cassette tapes for those of you that are not old enough to remember, yet blow me away as far as PC knowledge goes :) ), to dealing with SSI Baseball, Impossible Mission, Summer Games, Beachhead, and the like on a 5 1/4 floppy in the 1541 Drive for the C64, to Pirates and Tony LaRussa Baseball on 3.5" diskettes in my Gateway floppy drive, to Baldurs Gate and Dark Forces on CD for my Dell's, to Half-Life and Earth 2150 on CD for my home build with friend, to RTCW and HL2 (the latter on DVD-ROM) for my Alieanware (Sigh).

Do you know how much it sucked installing Tony LaRussa baseball? It was something like 12 Diskettes...and about 6 more if you wanted the stadium pack installed, and another 3 or 4 if you wanted the face pack! Haha! Baldur's Gate took about 45 minutes to install! Black & White, the original one, gave my wife and kids nothing but problems with every patch I installed to fix the other stuff that was giving them problems!

But my 360? Man, I just slide it in and play! Damn that feels good! With that being said, I still prefer PC gaming (love my mouse and KB), but it is such a pain in the butt to install this stuff, deal with key codes, patch it up, and then all that troubleshooting because something is creating a conflict with something else. Now, for one, this is a by product of one of the benefits of PC over console, it does SO MUCH MORE than play games...but the software and utilities you use to do so much more, or to protect yourself from others doing stuff to you, creates hassles at many times...damn those damn conflicts! Haha!

I could never go to console and leave PC completely...never, but man do I wish we could get to a point where we slide the game in and play....which will probably never happen...if for no other reason than all the customization in PC world (which is yet another reason that makes PC'ing so much fun)...

Looking back at my post...did I actually have a point? :??:


13Bravo -- USHA!!
 


Whereas I can't imagine going back to the bad old days of game content on CD-ROM so you'd regularly have to wait an age for it to load. I was so glad when hard disks got big enough to install all the content for fast access.
 


Heck no! I'm totally with you on that! Unfortunately, I still have WAY too long hiccups regularly with HL2 but I am sure that is due to my system (running p4 3.2 EE with 2X512 mem). My point, if I had one...as mentioned in the last line I am not sure if I actually had one, was that it is nice to be able to buy a game, unwrap it, slide it into the drive and play it. As opposed to having to install it, patch it up, deal with software/hardware conflicts, patch it up some more, deal w/more SW/HW conflicts, etc. Obviously it isn't all that bad for every game title, and I NEVER speak for anyone elses experience as I can only speak to my own, but I have had 25 years of dealing with issues instead of JUST playing the game. Now, I wouldn't trade any of it...it's been a great ride! However, as someone who never "consoled" to all of a sudden having the PS3 AND the 360 in my house, I just found it damn refreshing to throw the game in and play...nothing more, nothing less. It just felt plain good. But I still prefer PC gaming...maybe that's hypocritical, maybe it isn't...it just is what it is...I think...
 
PC have been and will always will be more expensive than console. Let me tell you about my upgrade path for the last 6 years (without monitor). In the summer of 2001 I bought a PC with Duron 800, 256MB RAM and Geforce 2GTS for $500. In the summer of 2003 I upgraded that PC with Athlon XP 1700, 512 RAM, and Radeon 9500 (hacked to perform equal to 9700) for $300 and use that PC until 2005 when I buy a completely new PC. Now you can clearly see that just to keep up playing multiplatform game that come out for XBOX 1 and PC I have spend $800. For 2 years (2001-2003) I had to live with a worse image quality than the XBOX. $800 is almost three times the price of the original XBOX when it come out. The conclusion of my story? You need to spend 3-4 times more when you game on the PC (if you compare it to console), but during the twilight year of that console (2 years before the next generation of console is released), you will get better image quality. If you always used the cutting edge PC component you will always get a better image quality when you compare it to console but it will also cost you 5-6 times. It all come down to what do you want, and what are you willing to do to get it. If what you want is only to play game than console is the obvious choice, it's much cheaper and for half of the consoles live cycle the image quality is about equal. But if you are like me (a person that use PC for a lot of number crunching with Matlab and edit video) than it make sense to upgrade the GPU to keep up with the latest game because it only cost about $200.
 
Saying that a console @ 500 (or whatever it is for americans, I don't know cause I live in australia) is cheaper than a PC is all well an good, but a good TV for it will cost quite a lot (like >1000), whereas for 1500 odd you can build a killer system with a monitor that looks just as big because you sit closer to it.
Plus, PC's can do many different tasks, play movies, msn, email, word processing etc.
I personally wouldn't buy a console simply because games cost a fair amount more (usually, why is that?).
 
If you are good with your PC you will never have problems… I know I have never had a hardware or software conflict in the last 7 years with any games what so ever. I am also able to play any game I want with out upgrading but sometimes I choose to upgrade as it can add extra features. On top of that, since when has installing been a problem. It means for 5 minuets worth of install time I can save hours worth of loading time and waiting for the games to read off a disc.

What all these console people seem to miss is that to game well on a console it will cost you a lot of money. Over the space of say 30 games in a consoles lifetime you will have spent £300 ($600) over what you would have if buying the same games on a PC. You will also have to buy a new TV to get the games playable on this current generation of consoles, with the cheapest costing you in the region of £350 ($700). Not to mention the £300 ($600) outlay on the console it’s self. And on top of that the 360 has a £40 ($80) a year subscription to play games online.

It’s not about price at all, the initial outlay on a console is lower, that’s if you don’t have to buy a new TV. But in the long run a console will cost you just as much, if not more. Than a PC will set you back. And the thing about a console is they are only good for one thing, gaming. So what’s better in the long run… depends on your needs and wants. If you want to play nothing but games and don’t need a PC then a console is for you. If you do want a PC and like gaming then to be honest in the long run you are actually better off buying a good PC if you can afford the initial outlay.
 


Your reasoning is a little single sided when comparing the extra costs of buying a HD tv vs buying a computer that can do a lot of other things besides playing games. A new HD tv can also be used for other things than gaming, so if you really want to do a cost comparison in that sense you also have to budget in what other computer needs you have and how much money you want to spend on home cinema. Only then can you compare pure gaming costs.

The worst thing yet is that not all games are available on any platform and that really complicates issues when trying to decide to go for which platform. As a consumer I hate platform specific games because I want as much decoupling as possible between the hardware and the software in order to have maximal flexibility in choosing my games and the hardware that has to come with it. That is why I still favor the PC as my favorite gaming platform, even when Microsoft is trying to shove Vista down our gaming throats with their dx10 platform coupling crap.






 
The only other thing a HDTV does other than expanding the console quality to a playable level is let you watch TV. I could already watch TV on my 22-year-old 26” CRT. I still don’t have any real need for my HDTV other than it looking nice as I only have Sky+ meaning that I am still watching TV in PAL resolutions, and even if I did upgrade to SkyHD all I would be getting would be 4 extra channels I already get anyway in a better quality format.

So for most people a HDTV is a compulsory upgrade for the current generation of consoles, I tried playing my 360 on the old 26” TV but it was terrible. I could barely read the writing on the screen, as it was too small and fuzzy to read. Due to the games being designed for use with 720p and above.

So lets add an extra angle on to this, if you already have a HDTV for any reason then yes a console is going to end up costing you about 25% less. But then if you already own a PC then it’s going to cost you 25% less to upgrade that over buying a new one.

In monitory terms I just think people are fooled in to thinking that consoles are going to cost you less. I mean they don’t sell you a console at a loss for nothing. They know you are going to more than make up for it in the long run with the extra price they put on to the games and all the 3rd party gadgets they sell as extremely high margins.
 
neee, you can have it quite cheap. For example, I just upgraded my 8800 GTS 320 to 8800 GTX and made $80 profit. How? Well, I sold the 8800 GTS for $400... in Poland :)

And you can get those GTXs used for quite cheap from craigslist :)
 


I'm actually about 90% sure that the PS3 is superior to a $600 PC. That cell processor is the future of Intel and AMD. It's what Sun and I believe IBM does now with it's high end workstations and servers, meaning dynamic allocation of CPU resources. Dual cores and quad cores from Intel and AMD for the consumer market are not yet able to do this. It's not the long way, it's the forward thinking way.

Look at it this way, Sony is probably losing $1000 on every PS3 it sells due to the expensive blueray drive and R&D amortization for something so advanced.

Oh, and you can run an OS on a PS3 and you can also attach a mouse and keyboard to it. Plus HDMI out, 1920x1080 resolution, connectivity to HDTVs, and built in wireless. and it can do something few PCs can do- play playstation games.
 


EXACTLY! OK, I want to play Crysis as it is "meant to be played". I have to buy VISTA for $300.00. It’s a hog, so I buy a faster CPU for $500.00. Then, I buy one or two 8800 series cards for another $600.00 or more. Now my mother board isn't for Intel since I was a bleeding edge gamer and have an AMD system. I buy a $250.00 Intel board so I can use a QUAD core CPU this spring. My old memory won't work so off I go there, too. After all that plus all the upgrade installation time I then say PC's are apples and that a game on a PC is SO much more different than a console for games (nope, there not, outside of the keyboard and mouse. Funny, those two items are dirt cheap!).

Sorry you all, but I used a 300MHz PII for eight years at work and only upgraded it because it wouldn't run a bloated new O.S. called XP that runs even more bloated software, not because it wouldn't run office apps just fine (My 200MHz did too!).

When you divide the objective, the prices will concore you every time. PC's are so divided. There is no optimization to really do ANYthing anymore. It has become so "open" that even the basic O.S. barely works. Why is LINUX so popular, or gaining support? Because it is optimized to TASKS! No other good reason, really. It's just more of a hammer and not every other tool in the tool box. Just open your console screen in XPSP2, the icons blink on one by one as if you flipped switch for each and every one. SLOOOOW is all I can say.

I contend that PC's are about the same cost, adjusting for inflation, as they once were but run basic tasks poorly by comparison and are indeed expensive to run games on. If PC's were designed to run office apps, and not be TV's, game machines, ETC. you'd see a big speed improvement. In the old days, games used the office app programs. Now, it is the opposite. Just look at the Vista hourglass (and pay much more for it, too). Who the hell needs that to run WORD?

The question remains, are you willing to pay for engineering blunders and oversights that coagulate a single box called a PC, or are you willing to optimize a platform at an amazing price point called a console? Take your pick. Before you PC fan boys squelch me, I own a PC and not a console..and I do play games. Man, is it ever expensive!
 
OK, I want to play Crysis as it is "meant to be played". I have to buy VISTA for $300.00. It’s a hog, so I buy a faster CPU for $500.00. Then, I buy one or two 8800 series cards for another $600.00 or more. Now my mother board isn't for Intel since I was a bleeding edge gamer and have an AMD system. I buy a $250.00 Intel board so I can use a QUAD core CPU this spring. My old memory won't work so off I go there, too. After all that plus all the upgrade installation time I then say PC's are apples and that a game on a PC is SO much more different than a console for games (nope, there not, outside of the keyboard and mouse. Funny, those two items are dirt cheap!).

Sorry you all, but I used a 300MHz PII for eight years at work and only upgraded it because it wouldn't run a bloated new O.S. called XP that runs even more bloated software, not because it wouldn't run office apps just fine (My 200MHz did too!).

When you divide the objective, the prices will concore you every time. PC's are so divided. There is no optimization to really do ANYthing anymore. It has become so "open" that even the basic O.S. barely works. Why is LINUX so popular, or gaining support? Because it is optimized to TASKS! No other good reason, really. It's just more of a hammer and not every other tool in the tool box. Just open your console screen in XPSP2, the icons blink on one by one as if you flipped switch for each and every one. SLOOOOW is all I can say.

I contend that PC's are about the same cost, adjusting for inflation, as they once were but run basic tasks poorly by comparison and are indeed expensive to run games on. If PC's were designed to run office apps, and not be TV's, game machines, ETC. you'd see a big speed improvement. In the old days, games used the office app programs. Now, it is the opposite. Just look at the Vista hourglass (and pay much more for it, too). Who the hell needs that to run WORD?

The question remains, are you willing to pay for engineering blunders and oversights that coagulate a single box called a PC, or are you willing to optimize a platform at an amazing price point called a console? Take your pick. Before you PC fan boys squelch me, I own a PC and not a console..and I do play games. Man, is it ever expensive!
 
r30

While I don't completely agree with your price comparison arguments, I feel that you raised a great point about the terrible direction that OS's are going. Back in the day, one of the aspects of using a PC over a mac that I enjoyed was the stripped-down nature of the OS. Now both MS and apple are in this war to build huge, resource-hogging OS's that have a thousand 'functions' that we will never use but require contant patching.

I found a few discussions about 'bloatware' associated with Vista, but they curiously focused on pre-installed third party apps that come with Dells or whatever. To me, the whole dang OS is bloatware - the interface, the 'security' features, etc.

XP is hardly better - if an OS needs performance or security updates every week, then there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

I dunno, just my 0.02.

C
 
OMG!! this is the never ending story of Console vs. PC gaming. It's like watching a ping pong match that goes on forever.

Console games... I bet you have a PC. Let's say it's $600 and a Gaming rig will cost you $1600. So lets say thats and extra $1000. x360 and PS3 you really need an HD TV to make it worth even playing. Whats an ok HD cost? $1000 maybe?

PC Gamers.... What I just said.. just in reverse.

In the end it ALL costs the same anyways. so quite your biatching.

My own option, PC shooters and RTS games are easier to control than console and the experience is usually better. Racing, side scroll, and 3rd person games are much better to play on the console.

I personally only have a PS2 and I enjoy Racing games on it FAR better than a PC. Each has Pros... each has Cons...

GEEEZ! do we have to separate everyone into a corner or paddle you with a ruler?
 
OH!! and quite using Crysis as a benchmark. Everyone knows its a HOG! everyone knows you need en ungodly system to run it. But it's just one game. Use a different game like, UT3, COD4, Team Fortress 2, any other new game. You don't need galactic power to run any of these and make it look good. My PC cost $1400 a year ago... well plus a monitor. I need a PC anyways and could have made a decent one for $1000 but I upgraded the video to play games. Ohhhhhh $350. less than a console or the same.

And to be on the gamer side, if I had an HD tv I might buy a console for $400. But Im not getting an HD tv just to play games. I have a 24" samsung flat tube tv. It's great cause i want an hour a day.
 
The 8800 GTS is not obsolete. It isn't the top dog anymore...(never really was, with the GTX and Ultra), but the GT did bump it down a notch. But, it is still a great card.

When you compare PC gaming to consoles, you said a console has a lifespan of 4 years while the PC has 6 months. This is comparing two different things. At the beginning of a consoles life, it is usually a little better (or about the same) as the best PC you can find at the time. But at the middle/end of that consoles life (2-4 years later) it is performing pretty poorly compared to PCs at the time. I mean, look at the ps2 and Xbox 1 at the time PS3 and 360 came out... Pretty crappy compared to the PCs at the time.

 
I own a 360 and a PS3 and a Wii. But PC gaming is FAR superior. And don't forget, with the consoles, you'll need to shell out another $600 on a display (probably more like $1000).
 
French man be gentle!I try english hehe
a 8800 GTS obsolete? The Video card is still around 300.00 $ so it's far from being obsolete.It's a medium HIGH END card OR LOW High end Card.

But i agree with you.PC gaming it's expensive if you're addict , rich or .... lol .
Enough to waste all of your extra income into upgrade.Or all of it if you're a student .
Trust me i work in a computer shop has tech.Most of the consumer purchasing ultra powerful rig with the most powerful video card are student with debt . , living in a 1 x 1 box with a computer a bed and 1 window and 3 pair of shirt.
At 17 i purchased a 3000.00 rig.Thanks i had nothing to pay and i worked.


Most people don't purchase a 8800 GTS + .High End gaming it's a minority.So don't be bluffed when you read the Crysis Forum .Because i know tons of people still running OLD computer.Some people don't even have one.My uncle for exemple.More thing to carry about than moving pixel on a screen at 1600X1200.He can't purchase a computer.But with 80 k income he should be able eh?No , he got responsabilities.He pay for his children at the university whom own a computer.Funlly like hell.Anyway , back on the topic.

If you're an extreme gamer .Than go. Waste your money so you can put those graphic at very High setting.But you have to accept that your system won't br top-end in 6 month .. and that 3000 you paid for it is now worth 1000.

Has for someone saying that PC Game quickly surpass console in graphic. lol

You realize that when a console is new(Gear of Wars x360) Is considered in term of console life LOW END graphic?Video game for console are mega optimized.What run on an OLD 700 MHZ xbox require a 2.4 GHZ - 3 GHZ CPU for PC gaming.

Because they work hard to make the best possible optimisation they can use on a console.Unlike a PC where the optimisation is realy (BEEP).Because BIG COMPANIES LIKE UBISOFT making PC game are associated with CPU(AMD INTEL) and graphic card (NVID)MARKET wanting to sell their overpriced video card and cpu.So they slack the optimisation.THink HALO 2 (Micrsoft) a BIG huge deep smooth joke.The only need of VISTA and the recommended system make us all wonder if this game was made for xbox or the 360.

Crysis for exemple hiding the fact that you can enable VERY HIGH GRAPHIC even without DX10 and get around the SAME RESULT?Consumer believe anything.



After just 1 years.You stat looking at the most demanding game and you find already your spec in the recommanded or worse in the minimum bare.We all know that the publisher love to down the graphic.Minimum barely mean with 0 effect to get 15 fps if you're lucky.Big huge joke.

Gears of War 2 in 4 years maybe at the end of the x360.Now remember to watch the recommended spec when it's come to pc.Remember i and come back here saying that pc gaming have better visual for price.

Peace
 
the ONLY reason why console users feel satisfied is that they do not have to go to a graphics menu to tweak the settings for a good performance/quality ratio , since the game manufacturer has already done that , and they are actually charging you for tweaking settings !!!! (a game costing 40$ on pc costs you at least 55$ on console) , i remember a few years ago when NFS UG was brand new my friend (who had played it on his ps2 ) came to see my (then) brand new rig (athlonxp 2100 + 9600xt + 1gb ram ....... ) run it . it turned out on the ps2 version there was no such thing called as motion blurr !!!!
what i`m trying to say is the comparison of games running on pc and consoles is ridiculous (a high end pc absolutely KILLS any console) ........... BUT , having a high end pc (and more importanly keeping it highend!!!)costs fortunes.
but still having a pc , you have the advantage of being able to tweak the settings the way it pleases YOU (being satisfied with your gaming is most important , isn`t it ?) ........ now if you`re too lazy to tweak your game and want the manufacturer do that for you then go buy a console and pay EXPERTS to decide which graphical features you need and which you don`t !!!!
the hell with it , if you`re that lazy just forget about gaming , go buy satellite and watch TV allday long !!!!

ps: i had my old system till 2 months ago (exactly 3.5 years) , and i only felt the need for upgrade in the last 8-9 months, i now have a core2duo e6750 + 8800gt512 + 2gb ram ....... , it cost me overall about 900$ but i could sell my older pc for 300$ , so in reallity it cost me only 600$ and i`m sure i won`t be needing any major upgrading in the next 3-4 years ( i might add an extra 2gb ram next year for switching to vista )
 
Because although your rig gets more powerful each time, your enjoyment doesn't increase. Photorealism is the holy grail of game design at the moment, and gameplay seems to have suffered.
 
Tweaking settings does not make the PC better. Consoles run just fine and for the newer consoles they can run on the 1920x1080. The nice thing is people don't have to fight with drivers, hope their system will run a game or deal with the same frustrations PC users do.

People want to play games more than they want to fiddle with all the crap to get it to work. Also they don't want to pay 300 extra dollars to get a game to run. Only if you buy 20 games do you notice the price difference between console games or PCs.

As for a display the newer LCDs will hook into your PC. Seems like I would rather buy a 46" LCD with a slightly lower resolution (1920x1080) than the super high resolution monitors.

I love PC gaming, but it is the games that don't translate into consoles that I enjoy playing. FPS and fighting games are perfect for consoles and do it well.
 
I used to be all about console gaming, now I only use PC. I spent $3800 on my New PC and I feel no regret at all. When I play games, I play for the multiplayer, and console gaming is so weak at multiplayer online. I don't even touch the Single player aspect of the game, I go right to multiplayer and have a blast. I also have 2 computers hooked up side by side, both with CoD4, 2142, BF2, ArmA, many more and when friends come over, I can assure you we have more fun online gaming then we have any time we've ever played on consoles.

I think if you do like playing single player games or a coop then by all means buy a console, if there ever was a game i wanted to play that badly, I would rent the game and play it at a friends house and save myself $$$ from having to buy a console.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom