Are pc gamers mad about next gen?

#201 Posted by mikhail (2073 posts) -

@Cranler: That isn't intended for you to give your friends access to your PS4 or games - it's meant so you can play your own games on different systems if you want to.

Steam Family Sharing is exactly that, it's intended to share your library with other people on different systems. This is two completely different things.

#202 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@Cranler: That isn't intended for you to give your friends access to your PS4 or games - it's meant so you can play your own games on different systems if you want to.

Steam Family Sharing is exactly that, it's intended to share your library with other people on different systems. This is two completely different things.

Yet both consoles allow concurrent use of libraries and steam doesn't.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/playstation-4/How_to_Game-Share_with_Family_and_Friends

#203 Posted by OhSnapitz (18411 posts) -

@bldgirsh:

No OS..

No inputs..

and I can only assume that you would use it in a TV. Because you didn't include a monitor..

I mean seriously.. Does it hurt you Herm's mothers to admit that the PC is more expensive. Do you fall out in uncontrollable convulsions?

Let me know.. I'm curious.

#204 Edited by remiks00 (1877 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Gue1 said:

herms getting owned left and right on multiple threads. Love it. ;)

Here's a PC build that outperforms the "next-gen" consoles for the same price as a "next-gen" console. Now, please try to disprove how I am getting "owned."

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/bldgirsh/saved/HBMwrH

@Gue1 Sorry, there's no "herms" getting owned anywhere on this forum so far. All I see is consistent disagreements. Which is the nature of SW's

#205 Edited by thehig1 (2037 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@thehig1 said:

@Cranler said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@Cranler said:

I thought you were going to provide links to great deals on Watchdogs and Wolfenstein.

I'm getting some hostility from this sentence.

Because I never said I would do such a thing... and this is what ? Asking me nicely ?

You said if i look around I could find good deals on those games. Where prices will be much lower than conssole. Only places that offer better pricing than console versions are those sites that sell keys as gifts which is against steams terms of use. Where can I get good deals from reputable sites on Wolfenstein?

https://www.g2a.com/wolfenstein-the-new-order-steam.html

I use this site, got Sleeping Dogs, Tropico 5 and Bioshock Infinite from this Website.

Wolfienstien costs £11, thats about $18.

I was asking for reputable sites. This site isn't an authorized seller and steam has the right to ban.

After 2 minutes of research I found all i need to know to steer clear of this site. This review site says it all. Any decent company will have at least 90% positive reviews. Half the people who buy here have issues

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/g2a.com

guess I was lucky on this site so far, I'll stop using from now on and go back to steam itself.

#206 Posted by Jebus213 (8883 posts) -

Why does this thread still exist? It needs to be purged.

#207 Edited by superclocked (5823 posts) -

@UNcartMe said:

The only two things PC gamers would have the right to be angry at is that:

1. Developers cannot create (nor ever will) a game that is fully optimized for their (PC gamers) setups.

2. Although PC has a plethora of games released every year, the days of major PC exclusives are gone. The chances of their being a huge AAA blockbuster exclusive on PC are slim to none.

PC gamers have many upsudes though. A few include.

1. The ability to customize their hardware and software.

2. Cheaper games and a wider range of small indie titles.

3. The choice to play multiplatform games at higher resolutions, higher FPS, and use custom mods.

Unlike most fanboys around here, I see both the upsides and downsides to both sides.

With that being said, I prefer consoles because I love playing strong single player driven games (TLOU). But i also have a decent PC with Steam that I would use if any decent single player games came out.

1) http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/mantle#overview

2) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

Also, http://www.engadget.com/tag/OculusRift/

#208 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -

@OhSnapitz: Once you factor in additional costs, like game prices and free online, PC gaming is actually cheaper. For instance, my son's XBox One has cost us far more than my PC.. $550 for the box, plus an extra controller, XBox Live, a few games to last until Titanfall, then Titanfall plus a season pass was almost $100, he needed a new 1080p LCD tv with HDMI inputs, a 7.1 channel receiver, and he needs an army of Skylanders figurines in order to access the entire game. Hell, I've bought about 100 PC games for the price of just a few of his XBox One games...

#209 Edited by BldgIrsh (2592 posts) -

@OhSnapitz: Linux Steam OS. Use your old copy of windows. Why need a input when most games are digital. Someone's butthurt.

#211 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Gue1 said:

herms getting owned left and right on multiple threads. Love it. ;)

Here's a PC build that outperforms the "next-gen" consoles for the same price as a "next-gen" console. Now, please try to disprove how I am getting "owned."

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/bldgirsh/saved/HBMwrH

That pc is below ram req of Dead Rising 3 which happens to be the first next gen only multiplat. Seems to me like most next gen only games will require 6 gb.

Where's the os?

As multithreaded support increases quad cores will become obsolete. Especially a quad core as weak as what's in this build.

#212 Posted by BldgIrsh (2592 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

@Gue1 said:

herms getting owned left and right on multiple threads. Love it. ;)

Here's a PC build that outperforms the "next-gen" consoles for the same price as a "next-gen" console. Now, please try to disprove how I am getting "owned."

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/bldgirsh/saved/HBMwrH

That pc is below ram req of Dead Rising 3 which happens to be the first next gen only multiplat. Seems to me like most next gen only games will require 6 gb.

Where's the os?

As multithreaded support increases quad cores will become obsolete. Especially a quad core as weak as what's in this build.

This build is meant to perform better than the next-gen. Not run the games at ultra. Now, don't change the main subject. Your flawed view of "PC gaming is not cheaper." You have yet to address any credible statements on how PC gaming isn't cheaper than the consoles.

Linux, Steam OS.

#213 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

@Gue1 said:

herms getting owned left and right on multiple threads. Love it. ;)

Here's a PC build that outperforms the "next-gen" consoles for the same price as a "next-gen" console. Now, please try to disprove how I am getting "owned."

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/bldgirsh/saved/HBMwrH

That pc is below ram req of Dead Rising 3 which happens to be the first next gen only multiplat. Seems to me like most next gen only games will require 6 gb.

Where's the os?

As multithreaded support increases quad cores will become obsolete. Especially a quad core as weak as what's in this build.

This build is meant to perform better than the next-gen. Not run the games at ultra. Now, don't change the main subject. Your flawed view of "PC gaming is not cheaper." You have yet to address any credible statements on how PC gaming isn't cheaper than the consoles.

Linux, Steam OS.

That build won't perform better than the Nintendo 64 without an os, mouse and kb. You also left out controller cost since many games have shoddy mouse support.

Where did I bring up running games on ultra? I'm talking about meeting minimum reqs. Dead Rising 3 minimum req is 6gb ram. What did you think would happen with ram reqs now that 8gb consoles are out?

Low end cpu's at the beginning of last gen became obsolete after 3 years. That low end quad core could be under min reqs within 3 years.

You havn't made any credible statement. Just charts full of assumptions.

#214 Posted by BldgIrsh (2592 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

@Gue1 said:

herms getting owned left and right on multiple threads. Love it. ;)

Here's a PC build that outperforms the "next-gen" consoles for the same price as a "next-gen" console. Now, please try to disprove how I am getting "owned."

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/bldgirsh/saved/HBMwrH

That pc is below ram req of Dead Rising 3 which happens to be the first next gen only multiplat. Seems to me like most next gen only games will require 6 gb.

Where's the os?

As multithreaded support increases quad cores will become obsolete. Especially a quad core as weak as what's in this build.

This build is meant to perform better than the next-gen. Not run the games at ultra. Now, don't change the main subject. Your flawed view of "PC gaming is not cheaper." You have yet to address any credible statements on how PC gaming isn't cheaper than the consoles.

Linux, Steam OS.

That build won't perform better than the Nintendo 64 without an os, mouse and kb. You also left out controller cost since many games have shoddy mouse support.

Where did I bring up running games on ultra? I'm talking about meeting minimum reqs. Dead Rising 3 minimum req is 6gb ram. What did you think would happen with ram reqs now that 8gb consoles are out?

Low end cpu's at the beginning of last gen became obsolete after 3 years. That low end quad core could be under min reqs within 3 years.

You havn't made any credible statement. Just charts full of assumptions.

Chart full of assumptions? You mean the chart that lists out all the expenditures for each system?

Please, why don't you do the math then since you seem to be claiming that Consoles are cheaper in its cycle than a PC running the same length of time.

#215 Posted by BldgIrsh (2592 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@Cranler: High game prices over the life of a console compared to game prices on PC, even with a couple of upgrades, mean that PC will almost always be cheaper. The more games a person buys, the cheaper that gaming on PC's is. Factor in Steam sales, free games, more F2P games, and free multiplayer, and PC wins the price war handily.

How many full priced retail games did you buy during the last console cycle? Let's say a "heavy" gamer buys an average of one game per month at full retail, $59.99. Forget used games, sales, PS Plus, whatever. We're talking straight AAA full retail purchases here. The PS3 was around for about 7 years, give or take. I won't lump an additional $400 in there for PS Plus because it wasn't required for multiplayer at that time, but it is now.

7 years * 12 months * $59.99 = $5039

PC - I'll be generous and give you an apples to apples comparison here and say that an equivalent PC gamer bought only one game per month at average full retail PC game price, $49.99.

7 years * 12 months * $49.99 = $4199

That's an $800 plus difference. More than enough for a couple of significant upgrades or a rebuild during the console life cycle, and we haven't even factored in things like Steam sales / GOG / Humble Bundle / GreenManGaming or whatever. The more comparisons you start making, the more the PC starts to come out on top. Oh, and here's the kicker...console owners are paying more for an inferior experience, and their console only plays games and watches movies. The PC can produce content, edit audio and video, be used for school and work, emulate virtually any past console ever (even handhelds), is open source, you can use any controller ever, use multiple different controllers at once (Even a DualShock and a 360 controller at the same time, AND a Kinect if you wanted), and on and on and on.

However, I'm here to tell you, PC gamers don't spend that high of an average on games. It's far lower. And the more games someone buys, the larger the savings difference is going to be.

The PC is the superior gaming platform, hands down, in every category.

Here, Cranler someone else doing simple math to show the difference of costs between a PC and a console. But, please continue trying to justify spending your life savings on a inferior system.

#216 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

@Gue1 said:

herms getting owned left and right on multiple threads. Love it. ;)

Here's a PC build that outperforms the "next-gen" consoles for the same price as a "next-gen" console. Now, please try to disprove how I am getting "owned."

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/bldgirsh/saved/HBMwrH

That pc is below ram req of Dead Rising 3 which happens to be the first next gen only multiplat. Seems to me like most next gen only games will require 6 gb.

Where's the os?

As multithreaded support increases quad cores will become obsolete. Especially a quad core as weak as what's in this build.

This build is meant to perform better than the next-gen. Not run the games at ultra. Now, don't change the main subject. Your flawed view of "PC gaming is not cheaper." You have yet to address any credible statements on how PC gaming isn't cheaper than the consoles.

Linux, Steam OS.

That build won't perform better than the Nintendo 64 without an os, mouse and kb. You also left out controller cost since many games have shoddy mouse support.

Where did I bring up running games on ultra? I'm talking about meeting minimum reqs. Dead Rising 3 minimum req is 6gb ram. What did you think would happen with ram reqs now that 8gb consoles are out?

Low end cpu's at the beginning of last gen became obsolete after 3 years. That low end quad core could be under min reqs within 3 years.

You havn't made any credible statement. Just charts full of assumptions.

Chart full of assumptions? You mean the chart that lists out all the expenditures for each system?

Please, why don't you do the math then since you seem to be claiming that Consoles are cheaper in its cycle than a PC running the same length of time.

The chart that assumes every pc game will be $20 off. We don't know what pc reqs will be a few years down the road, especially you since you thought a measly 4gb would suffice.

@bldgirsh said:

@mikhail said:

@Cranler: High game prices over the life of a console compared to game prices on PC, even with a couple of upgrades, mean that PC will almost always be cheaper. The more games a person buys, the cheaper that gaming on PC's is. Factor in Steam sales, free games, more F2P games, and free multiplayer, and PC wins the price war handily.

How many full priced retail games did you buy during the last console cycle? Let's say a "heavy" gamer buys an average of one game per month at full retail, $59.99. Forget used games, sales, PS Plus, whatever. We're talking straight AAA full retail purchases here. The PS3 was around for about 7 years, give or take. I won't lump an additional $400 in there for PS Plus because it wasn't required for multiplayer at that time, but it is now.

7 years * 12 months * $59.99 = $5039

PC - I'll be generous and give you an apples to apples comparison here and say that an equivalent PC gamer bought only one game per month at average full retail PC game price, $49.99.

7 years * 12 months * $49.99 = $4199

That's an $800 plus difference. More than enough for a couple of significant upgrades or a rebuild during the console life cycle, and we haven't even factored in things like Steam sales / GOG / Humble Bundle / GreenManGaming or whatever. The more comparisons you start making, the more the PC starts to come out on top. Oh, and here's the kicker...console owners are paying more for an inferior experience, and their console only plays games and watches movies. The PC can produce content, edit audio and video, be used for school and work, emulate virtually any past console ever (even handhelds), is open source, you can use any controller ever, use multiple different controllers at once (Even a DualShock and a 360 controller at the same time, AND a Kinect if you wanted), and on and on and on.

However, I'm here to tell you, PC gamers don't spend that high of an average on games. It's far lower. And the more games someone buys, the larger the savings difference is going to be.

The PC is the superior gaming platform, hands down, in every category.

Here, Cranler someone else doing simple math to show the difference of costs between a PC and a console. But, please continue trying to justify spending your life savings on a inferior system.

He doesn't take into account that most multiplats are same price on pc now. And again this doesn't compare startup costs and again we don't know what min reqs will be later in the gen.

Also this post assumes that only the pc gamer will look for deals. Plenty of great deals on console games also, on ebay you can easily get deals that rival steam and sometimes destroys steams sale pricing and you can find deals all the time not just 2 weeks a year like on steam.

$3.99 for South Park http://www.ebay.com/itm/South-Park-The-Stick-of-Truth-Xbox-360-2014-/301172535863?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item461f483237

#217 Edited by BldgIrsh (2592 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Chart full of assumptions? You mean the chart that lists out all the expenditures for each system?

Please, why don't you do the math then since you seem to be claiming that Consoles are cheaper in its cycle than a PC running the same length of time.

The chart that assumes every pc game will be $20 off. We don't know what pc reqs will be a few years down the road, especially you since you thought a measly 4gb would suffice.

@bldgirsh said:

Here, Cranler someone else doing simple math to show the difference of costs between a PC and a console. But, please continue trying to justify spending your life savings on a inferior system.

He doesn't take into account that most multiplats are same price on pc now. And again this doesn't compare startup costs and again we don't know what min reqs will be later in the gen.

Also this post assumes that only the pc gamer will look for deals. Plenty of great deals on console games also, on ebay you can easily get deals that rival steam and sometimes destroys steams sale pricing and you can find deals all the time not just 2 weeks a year like on steam.

$3.99 for South Park http://www.ebay.com/itm/South-Park-The-Stick-of-Truth-Xbox-360-2014-/301172535863?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item461f483237

"This listing has ended. The seller has relisted this item or one like this."

Actual listing

So, is English not your primary language? Because, I've stated at least twice if you made it 60$ instead of 40$ the PC will still be cheaper.

Please keep posting BS. It's really helping your case.

"Bu bu but if PC games require moar specs to run...." The money saved goes into it if you wish to be up to date.

#218 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Chart full of assumptions? You mean the chart that lists out all the expenditures for each system?

Please, why don't you do the math then since you seem to be claiming that Consoles are cheaper in its cycle than a PC running the same length of time.

The chart that assumes every pc game will be $20 off. We don't know what pc reqs will be a few years down the road, especially you since you thought a measly 4gb would suffice.

@bldgirsh said:

Here, Cranler someone else doing simple math to show the difference of costs between a PC and a console. But, please continue trying to justify spending your life savings on a inferior system.

He doesn't take into account that most multiplats are same price on pc now. And again this doesn't compare startup costs and again we don't know what min reqs will be later in the gen.

Also this post assumes that only the pc gamer will look for deals. Plenty of great deals on console games also, on ebay you can easily get deals that rival steam and sometimes destroys steams sale pricing and you can find deals all the time not just 2 weeks a year like on steam.

$3.99 for South Park http://www.ebay.com/itm/South-Park-The-Stick-of-Truth-Xbox-360-2014-/301172535863?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item461f483237

"This listing has ended. The seller has relisted this item or one like this."

Actual listing

So, is English not your primary language? Because, I've stated at least twice if you made it 60$ instead of 40$ the PC will still be cheaper.

Please keep posting BS. It's really helping you case.

"Bu bu but if PC games require moar specs to run...." The money saved goes into it if you wish to be up to date.

Ok I missed that it was relisted. It said sold and showed $3.99 total. Here it sold for $18 which is less than half the steam sale price. http://www.ebay.com/itm/South-Park-The-Stick-of-Truth-Grand-Wizard-Edition-Xbox-360-2013-/201079948223?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item2ed14c83bf

There's great deals on pc games on ebay too but you have to worry about whether the key will work or not.

What about pc startup pricing? A prebuilt that's guaranteed to last the gen will cost far more than $400. This may be a little over your head though since you thought a 4gb pc could run multiplats made for 8gb consoles.

#219 Edited by BldgIrsh (2592 posts) -

@Cranler: The fun part is the 400$ PC build wasn't actually the startup build. The PC listed in the chart was and it costs even more. :D

I am glad you are using eBay for purchasing games because now that counters your whole "sketchy" dealers argument. What's more sketchy then buying it from random people listing a default picture of the game. Hope you enjoy a picture of a Game you purchased for full prices on eBay because you believed it was the actual game.

As well you keep linking games that aren't for the "next-gen." Keep posting stuff that aren't supporting your argument.

You've been on gamespot for 9 years its obvious that you are suffering from fanboyism that you've contracted from the amount of time you've been active here. So, there's no need to continue to argue with you as your shit for brains won't understand that I was simply helping you understand that you will be saving money. Enjoy blowing more cash on an inferior system.

/argument

#220 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler: The fun part is the 400$ PC build wasn't actually the startup build. The PC listed in the chart was and it costs even more. :D

I am glad you are using eBay for purchasing games because now that counters your whole "sketchy" dealers argument. What's more sketchy then buying it from random people listing a default picture of the game. Hope you enjoy a picture of a Game you purchased for full prices on eBay because you believed it was the actual game.

As well you keep linking games that aren't for the "next-gen." Keep posting stuff that aren't supporting your argument.

You've been on gamespot for 9 years its obvious that you are suffering from fanboyism that you've contracted from the amount of time you've been active here. So, there's no need to continue to argue with you as your shit for brains won't understand that I was simply helping you understand that you will be saving money. Enjoy blowing more cash on an inferior system.

/argument

The fun part is that your trying to steer attention away from your inadequate build to someone elses.

That seller has all positive reviews.

Take a look at this seller. Look at those prices and all the positive feedback. These console game prices beat green man and on top of that you actually get the physical copy.

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=nopractor22&myworld=true&items=25&iid=-1&de=off&which=positive&interval=365

If you follow all my posts you'd see I hold no allegiance to any platform or corporation. I enjoy debating and if I see a post that I disagree with then i will reply.

You haven't proven anything. Cost for a prebuilt to match ps 4 will be at least $250 more which is the cost of 5 years of ps plus. Past gens have shown that after a couple years the min pc req will be higher than consoles.