PC Versus Consoles, the real world cost difference?

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -

Disclaimer: Bottom two paragraphs are first for the TL;DR version.

-

My computer is good but was never intended for gaming and if you're not gaming, you can comfortably run anything off your i5's built in GPU for example. You'd be surprised.

So is the real cost of PC vs consoles now a days just the price of the graphics card for many? It was for me, I would have had a PC anyway for the work I do. For me, next gen gaming only cost me £120 (Palit Storm X Dual GTX750Ti).

-

In the interests of fairness, consoles gamers like to consider the entire costs of a computer when comparing the prices to consoles. But is this really correct anymore? Especially with APU designs.

They often refer to the Steam survey which implies the average PC gamer is still using Dual Cores or whatever. But doesn't that imply that most PC gamers buy a PC for other reasons first? And most PCs can game to some degree without requiring expensive extra parts.

Surely it's only the enthusiasts that buy and build a PC purely for gaming, having the latest parts.

The only thing you need a graphics card for, is gaming these days, unless it's somehow helping you with a professional application.

I understand a graphics card on its own isn't going to game, but this is a perspective from the other side.

#2 Edited by KittenNose (631 posts) -

There is no answer to this question. I am a PC peasant. I play doofy games like Space Engineers on a computer that can hardly play Watch Dogs, and adore those games to bits and pieces. That said, I have spent about three grand in the last four years on PC gaming. About six hundred, maybe six fifty was on hardware, the rest on software.

Compare that to the previous four years as a Console gamer, when I spent two hundred bucks on hardware, but about five grand on games. That translates to saving about a grand and a half by switching to PC games, even if I spent several times more on the hardware.

Gaming is what you make of it. Granted, I think PC gaming is better for a book's worth of reasons, but what you pay depends on how you game. I know a guy who spent about three times what I spent on hardware in the same period, but a fraction of what I spent on games because he mostly played Lol and three MMOs, bringing his likely total expenditure to a great deal less then mine even if he has a beastly laptop that could run circles around my tower. Compare that to my brother in law who games more then me and my friend combined, but he only spent about four hundred on hardware, sixty a year on live, and sixty a year (plus DLC, no idea what it costs) on CoD. In four years that is likely less then a thousand dollars.

PC gaming costs more to get started. After, because you can recycle parts, and because games are so much cheaper, you easily recoup that investment if gaming is your primary hobby, and you buy several a month. If however you buy maybe three games a year, PC gaming is going to be far more expensive then grabbing a console and your shooter of choice.

Or in short: There is no universal answer. Depending on how you game, consoles can cost way less, or way more then PC gaming. At the end of the day we all chase the games we want anyway, price be damned.

#4 Edited by sneslover (941 posts) -

I had to build a cheap PC for video editing, just so I wouldn't risk overheating my aging laptop. Bought a core i3 system and I plan to buy that socket's highest i7 a few years from now. The initial cost was higher than a console, but I'm hopeful that when the next consoles come, I won't need to upgrade the i7, and even then, I already have a case, power supply and hard drive/ssd.

Most users rocking a socket 775 system with dual cores could buy a used Core 2 Quad 8000 or 9000 series and enjoy 2014 gaming quite smoothly, then you buy a graphics card and some more memory and you're set for a few years.

Although I prefer console gaming to PC gaming, because the Steam monopoly is scary, software problems may occur and less physical games, but at the same time the convenience of Steam, the more versatile hardware and less clutter are positives.

The good thing is, with consoles being modest and indie games being a major factor in PC gaming, as well as the majority of GOG's catalog, less hardware is needed, so even with an AMD APU you can play a myriad of games.

Consoles are cheaper for people who just have laptops, but even then the Wii U with the gamepad-inflated price and games that don't come down on price, makes it an exception.

#5 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (4799 posts) -

Why don't people had the price of HD LED TV's into the cost of consoles, considering these news ones require one? You're looking at atleast 350+ euros for a 40inch one, and that rises the cost of it pretty fast. After i did some price comparisons, i figured you're only saving 300 euros at best, but spending 600+ on either option.

And if price matters so much, should we had the cheaper prices on pc, the fact that you can rent or trade on consoles, the power saving with consoles, the higher prices for next gen controllers, etc?

IMHO, buying a next gen console because gaming pc's are "expensive" is simply stupid. Personally, i don't know anyone who can afford one, and then not the other. If someone enjoys consoles more, more power to them, but to me, i'll buy one, if not both, when they're cheaper and have more excluisves i want.

#6 Posted by Telekill (5032 posts) -

@kittennose: Best reply I've ever seen for this argument. Congrats.

#7 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18221 posts) -

This is How System Wars is suppose to be ! Great thread....... Now watch the Ignorant Fanboys fuck everything up....... Because thats what System Wars is.

#8 Posted by Netret0120 (2869 posts) -

@KittenNose:

Best answer /thread!!!

By far the best.

#9 Posted by scatteh316 (5021 posts) -

If you factor in the WHOLE cost and the amount the amount of games you by on average per year then PC actually works out cheaper.

#10 Posted by NFJSupreme (5403 posts) -

In the long run consoles will almost always cost more. Online fees, more expensive games, getting extra storage because you only get a 500gb hdd which is in reality 300 something GB. Extra controllers and peripherals. The cost can get pretty high. The whole price debate is stupid though. Gaming is so expensive hobby period. No matter what platform you are on it's going to cost you.

#12 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@kittennose said:

There is no answer to this question. I am a PC peasant. I play doofy games like Space Engineers on a computer that can hardly play Watch Dogs, and adore those games to bits and pieces. That said, I have spent about three grand in the last four years on PC gaming. About six hundred, maybe six fifty was on hardware, the rest on software.

Compare that to the previous four years as a Console gamer, when I spent two hundred bucks on hardware, but about five grand on games. That translates to saving about a grand and a half by switching to PC games, even if I spent several times more on the hardware.

Gaming is what you make of it. Granted, I think PC gaming is better for a book's worth of reasons, but what you pay depends on how you game. I know a guy who spent about three times what I spent on hardware in the same period, but a fraction of what I spent on games because he mostly played Lol and three MMOs, bringing his likely total expenditure to a great deal less then mine even if he has a beastly laptop that could run circles around my tower. Compare that to my brother in law who games more then me and my friend combined, but he only spent about four hundred on hardware, sixty a year on live, and sixty a year (plus DLC, no idea what it costs) on CoD. In four years that is likely less then a thousand dollars.

PC gaming costs more to get started. After, because you can recycle parts, and because games are so much cheaper, you easily recoup that investment if gaming is your primary hobby, and you buy several a month. If however you buy maybe three games a year, PC gaming is going to be far more expensive then grabbing a console and your shooter of choice.

Or in short: There is no universal answer. Depending on how you game, consoles can cost way less, or way more then PC gaming. At the end of the day we all chase the games we want anyway, price be damned.

That's kind of what I'm driving at. It's not clear cut to say PC cost X and a console cost Y. Because everyones situation is different. For me it just works out cheap because all I needed was a graphics card and I can game cheap off things like Steam.

@Desmonic said:

I think it's a very simple decision making process (in terms of real world gaming costs):

PC

  • More expensive from the start . A decent build often costs as much as a PS4+X1 aka ~ $800-$900 (or more even). I'm talking about a build that will last you for an entire gen without having to upgrade, you obviously can achieve console-level fidelity for $200-$300 less for example.
  • It ends up being cheaper in the long term (the sole duration of the gen, before needing to upgrade anything in particular) as mos new games cost $40 even at retail (lol). Cheaper even if one takes advantage of Steam Sales and the like.*
  • Inherently better at doing everything else outside of gaming (versus a console). Better work, media, social, whatever machines. Period.

Consoles

  • Far cheaper from the start. Both the PS4 and X1 cost "just" $399 and the WiiU costs $299. Assurance of being able to play any game for it without any sort of hardware upgrade.
  • They end up being more expensive than PC's in the long run as most new games cost $60 both online (lol) and in retail. Can be cheaper if one takes advantage of services like PS+ and GwG. The online sales aren't nearly as great as the ones on PC.*
  • Decent media hubs, but lack the versitality and broader range of the PC even in this department.

In the end it comes down to 2 things (for most people): Available money to spend on these and gaming preferences. I know PC is more capable, has more games and it would cheaper (for me), but I still very much enjoy console gaming. It may sound silly, but it is what it is :P

(* These are very dependant on how many games one buys. If for example one doesn't buy many games on PC it can end up being more expensive in the long run.)

---------------

As for your particular question (of GPU's only being needed for gaming). No. Not quite. Many professions require a meaty workstation with strong CPU's+GPU's. Video editing, image editing, 3D design (not just in the realm of gaming, think designing buildings, houses, materials, parts, etc) and more can't be done with just a powerful CPU. They always need a strong GPU (not the kind we use for gaming either).

But do you count the cost of the PC for gaming if you bought it for something else first? But I see what you're saying, my situation is a little unique. I got a fantastic deal on a computer for producing music that didn't have a graphics card. But I invested in some modifications as well. So while it worked out expensive, I only really think about the graphics card I got for gaming and the rest for my primary use.

#13 Posted by Motokid6 (6214 posts) -

PC gaming is indeed cheaper in the long run, but as kittennose stated it depends on how you game. Now.. every hobby is expensive. No matter what. All these pc gamers on this forum own atleast one console, no?

#14 Posted by Mesomorphin (864 posts) -

Why I would buy a console

- cheaper

- cross game chat built in system

- simplified button layout

- doesnt require graphics upgrade/extra money spent on a yearly basis on the hardware it self

- top exclusives

Why I would buy a pc

- Miscrosoft word....and maybe ms paint

#16 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@sneslover said:

I had to build a cheap PC for video editing, just so I wouldn't risk overheating my aging laptop. Bought a core i3 system and I plan to buy that socket's highest i7 a few years from now. The initial cost was higher than a console, but I'm hopeful that when the next consoles come, I won't need to upgrade the i7, and even then, I already have a case, power supply and hard drive/ssd.

Most users rocking a socket 775 system with dual cores could buy a used Core 2 Quad 8000 or 9000 series and enjoy 2014 gaming quite smoothly, then you buy a graphics card and some more memory and you're set for a few years.

Although I prefer console gaming to PC gaming, because the Steam monopoly is scary, software problems may occur and less physical games, but at the same time the convenience of Steam, the more versatile hardware and less clutter are positives.

The good thing is, with consoles being modest and indie games being a major factor in PC gaming, as well as the majority of GOG's catalog, less hardware is needed, so even with an AMD APU you can play a myriad of games.

Consoles are cheaper for people who just have laptops, but even then the Wii U with the gamepad-inflated price and games that don't come down on price, makes it an exception.

I don't envy you, I gather i7s are really quite expensive (they seem to range from £200 to £800). But then if it's for work, you tend not to think of it like that and the last thing you want to do is cut corners.

Also one of the benefits of not cutting corners is that the PC lasts far longer.

I think consoles seem cheaper, but over the course of the gen, costs really grow. I do not want to think of how much I invested in my console last gen.
@deadline-zero0 said:

Why don't people had the price of HD LED TV's into the cost of consoles, considering these news ones require one? You're looking at atleast 350+ euros for a 40inch one, and that rises the cost of it pretty fast. After i did some price comparisons, i figured you're only saving 300 euros at best, but spending 600+ on either option.

And if price matters so much, should we had the cheaper prices on pc, the fact that you can rent or trade on consoles, the power saving with consoles, the higher prices for next gen controllers, etc?

IMHO, buying a next gen console because gaming pc's are "expensive" is simply stupid. Personally, i don't know anyone who can afford one, and then not the other. If someone enjoys consoles more, more power to them, but to me, i'll buy one, if not both, when they're cheaper and have more excluisves i want.

I agree, for me needing a TV for gaming is the same as needing the rest of the stuff on a PC for gaming.

Also I think PCs now can use far less power than they used to and certainly less than people think. Only the high end components are less efficient. But mid range components are extremely capable these days.

But on the initial argument of price versus price, I don't think things are clear cut when it comes to saying the PC is more expensive.
@Lulu_Lulu said:

This is How System Wars is suppose to be ! Great thread....... Now watch the Ignorant Fanboys fuck everything up....... Because thats what System Wars is.

Thanks, I did expect to be bombarded by defensive fanboys who misunderstood my point.

@scatteh316 said:

If you factor in the WHOLE cost and the amount the amount of games you by on average per year then PC actually works out cheaper.

After the so called 'initial cost' you can game dirt cheap on the PC.

@NFJSupreme said:

In the long run consoles will almost always cost more. Online fees, more expensive games, getting extra storage because you only get a 500gb hdd which is in reality 300 something GB. Extra controllers and peripherals. The cost can get pretty high. The whole price debate is stupid though. Gaming is so expensive hobby period. No matter what platform you are on it's going to cost you.

That's true, but on the PC I think you could control it to the point where you can game well at low cost. Even if you built a PC for gaming on the low end, using AMD APUs and the top low end cards and amazing mid range cards if you push the price a bit, combined with steam and humble bundle and places like that, you can do very well for yourself. The choice and value the PC provides is amazing like that.

#17 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18221 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet

Atleast you're not Naive..... Also PC is the best ! :p

#18 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@Motokid6 said:

PC gaming is indeed cheaper in the long run, but as kittennose stated it depends on how you game. Now.. every hobby is expensive. No matter what. All these pc gamers on this forum own atleast one console, no?

I was getting at that, but also not just how you game, but what your situation is in the first place with your PC.

@mesomorphin said:

Why I would buy a console

- cheaper

- cross game chat built in system

- simplified button layout

- doesnt require graphics upgrade/extra money spent on a yearly basis on the hardware it self

- top exclusives

Why I would buy a pc

- Miscrosoft word....and maybe ms paint

Consoles are vastly more expensive in the long run. Retail games cost £40 compared to £25 - £30 for the same games on the PC, Online subscription, other extras, dlc milking. I was a console gamer last gen and it costs a lot if you think about everything you spent on it over the course of the gen.

- PCs can use whatever input you want usually,

- Yeah, the only time you need to keep upgrading is when you cut corners in the first place. Have a budget and choose your card well.

- The exclusive thing is subjective, if your into console games that's fine.

Why would you buy a PC?

- It only does everything ;-)

#20 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@Desmonic said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Going from an already pre-built PC to a more specific gaming version can also require more than just a GPU. You may need more RAM. You may need a better CPU (which in turn may require a new motherboard). You may also require a new power supply (as the better GPU's actually consume quite a bit). It's rarely as linear as just slapping a new GPU into it and presto :P

Though if you are in that particular situation, then yeah, you could spend much less than the price of a console and be (much) better served :)

I agree, but I guess what I'm trying to do is move the goal posts a bit in the costs argument. What you said is true, my point was it varies from situation to situation. So when someone here tells me 'yeah but your PC cost XY and Z', it certainly doesn't feel like that's the case. And other people have their situation, so why is there one all encompassing rule here that people use which implies people need to buy and include all PC parts in order to game.
And the argument you need an expensive card or that you need to constantly upgrade your card is a complete myth (not aimed at you).
@Lulu_Lulu said:

@HalcyonScarlet

Atleast you're not Naive..... Also PC is the best ! :p

:-)

#21 Posted by Heirren (18707 posts) -

Imo the only reason to game on pc is for that higher end experience, outside of some strategy games--and even those can tax the system. If you cut corners the entire pc game process becomes a big headache. With how fast tech moves in the area you really have to build to last. A couple points people gloss over:

-If you play games on a pc, a person is going to get a decent mouse/kb setup. It only makes sense as it is more comfortable and easier on that region of the body. Console gamers complain about controller ergonomics, and pc gamers seem to lie, at least on this site, about how an ergonomic keyboard isn't necessary.

-There's those that "lol" at "only" 1080p. This means the system setup will skyrocket over consoles, period.

-There's those that say "1080p@60fps". And that is fair. In this instant you weigh the quality difference. Is that slight image improvement worth the money? Here you have to factor in that a lot of the assets of games of today are designed around the current standard home television, just like they were back in the 16bit days. In a lot of cases a lower res textures will be used because the real world benefits of the added detail is not worth the processor time/performance. THey you weigh that performance increase vs the console exclusive games, etc etc.

Imo it makes the most sense to build a gaming pc dedicated to 1080p, at least at this point in time. It is simply way to expensive to buy a fast enough monitor that actually displays all that added detail. These pc fanboys will spout resolution this and fps that, but then play on a screen with a shit black level, etc etc. It doesn't make sense. Plasma is THE best current, consumer level, display tech for games. It is limited to 1080p.

...sorry to venture off like that.

#22 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:
@Lulu_Lulu said:

@HalcyonScarlet

Atleast you're not Naive..... Also PC is the best ! :p

PC is defiantly the best. Considering 99% of Nintendo consoles can be emulated on PC in HD. I have sold my Wii because I can play my Wii games in HD with the Wiimote on PC. Imagine that. PC is the best in so many ways. It's a FACT. But guess what? I would much prefer to game on a console. I like the vibe console gaming gives. And I agree that Nintendo have the most console like experience with the Wii U. XB1 just feels like Windows 8 and I don't like that. PS4 is a bit better there as it has an XMB look like PS3. But even PS3 doesn't feel like a console as much as the PS2 or even Wii U does. I don't like how consoles chase PC functionality. It will never beat it. Just be what it is. I really miss the days when consoles had a reset button. And a console BIOS logo like the PS1, PS2 and Gamecube. Consoles feel like cut down computers now with minimal functionality. A bit sad. Annoying as well.

Yeah, I do agree, console games on consoles feels a touch better sometimes. Even some of the ported games can feel a little weird to me on the PC, but this is just my opinion on this.

Also emulating isn't always good. There was recently a machine in an IGN news article that cost loads and played NES games on your HD TV. But if I want to play NES games, I want to play it on a NES, faults and all for the original experience. Emulation sounds exciting but the games can lose a certain charm imo. Playing some VC games on the Wii can feel odd to me.

#24 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7817 posts) -

PC is cheaper unless you feel the need to max every game out.

#25 Posted by Evo_nine (2089 posts) -

PC's can do something that consoles cant....

1080p/60fps

you pay a premium for it, but its worth it.

#26 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@Heirren said:

Imo the only reason to game on pc is for that higher end experience, outside of some strategy games--and even those can tax the system. If you cut corners the entire pc game process becomes a big headache. With how fast tech moves in the area you really have to build to last. A couple points people gloss over:

-If you play games on a pc, a person is going to get a decent mouse/kb setup. It only makes sense as it is more comfortable and easier on that region of the body. Console gamers complain about controller ergonomics, and pc gamers seem to lie, at least on this site, about how an ergonomic keyboard isn't necessary.

-There's those that "lol" at "only" 1080p. This means the system setup will skyrocket over consoles, period.

-There's those that say "1080p@60fps". And that is fair. In this instant you weigh the quality difference. Is that slight image improvement worth the money? Here you have to factor in that a lot of the assets of games of today are designed around the current standard home television, just like they were back in the 16bit days. In a lot of cases a lower res textures will be used because the real world benefits of the added detail is not worth the processor time/performance. THey you weigh that performance increase vs the console exclusive games, etc etc.

Imo it makes the most sense to build a gaming pc dedicated to 1080p, at least at this point in time. It is simply way to expensive to buy a fast enough monitor that actually displays all that added detail. These pc fanboys will spout resolution this and fps that, but then play on a screen with a shit black level, etc etc. It doesn't make sense. Plasma is THE best current, consumer level, display tech for games. It is limited to 1080p.

...sorry to venture off like that.

It's a valid opinion, but isn't the point of the PC that you can game at any level?

You can game well on a mid range PC these days if you chose your parts well. If you're chasing the high end, it becomes an expensive endeavour that never quite ends imo.

I think there's a big difference between choosing mid range components well and cutting corners. I don't think high end is the only way to go anymore. A CPU and GPU is probably the most expensive parts, but an i5 performs amazingly and it's not high end. I think in the past it was necessary max out everything, but I'm not so sure it is any more. Plus a top end i7 and extreme range GPU costs far too much.

#27 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18221 posts) -

@scottpsfan14

YES ! :) Just YES TO EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID ! I literally cannot disagree with a single thing you said.... Which is Huge because I "disagree" all the time...... You know what.... This is a "Breakout the expensive wine" type moment and thats exactly what I'm gonna do. :D

#28 Posted by sneslover (941 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet:

Thing is, the i3 suffices for now, as it's as powerful as an old i7 920 in most ways, then years later, when the i7s are as cheap as a Q8400 or something now, I'll get one to revitalize my system.

Cutting corners can pay off, if you set your expectations and do the math. For example, I can buy a Radeon 7770/ R7 250X now for 80€, overclock it and make it around XBone performance (I already got a GT 640 for like 35€, even if it's a bad card it's enough for a while with some OC, specially for the price), and buy a 80€ card two or three years from now, instead of buying a 160€ card now. Not only do I pay the same money, I can game right now (with not as much eye candy mind) and the card I'll buy later will surely be better than the 160€ card I would have bought now, all the while consuming less power (but not as good of a card, but that's the thing about cutting corners, you cut up to the point you feel comfortable).

The CPU argument I made for myself is the same, I bought an i3 3220 for 120€ that does everything I want it to now, and later on I'll get a 2600K/2700K/3770K used for like 80€ or so, when I will really need it, making the investment around 50€ less than if I bought the i7 right away (I can live with longer rendering times).

#30 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Console gaming is way more expensive for me and this is coming from somebody that paid over $1,800 to build his gaming rig.

#31 Posted by Heirren (18707 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@Heirren said:

Imo the only reason to game on pc is for that higher end experience, outside of some strategy games--and even those can tax the system. If you cut corners the entire pc game process becomes a big headache. With how fast tech moves in the area you really have to build to last. A couple points people gloss over:

-If you play games on a pc, a person is going to get a decent mouse/kb setup. It only makes sense as it is more comfortable and easier on that region of the body. Console gamers complain about controller ergonomics, and pc gamers seem to lie, at least on this site, about how an ergonomic keyboard isn't necessary.

-There's those that "lol" at "only" 1080p. This means the system setup will skyrocket over consoles, period.

-There's those that say "1080p@60fps". And that is fair. In this instant you weigh the quality difference. Is that slight image improvement worth the money? Here you have to factor in that a lot of the assets of games of today are designed around the current standard home television, just like they were back in the 16bit days. In a lot of cases a lower res textures will be used because the real world benefits of the added detail is not worth the processor time/performance. THey you weigh that performance increase vs the console exclusive games, etc etc.

Imo it makes the most sense to build a gaming pc dedicated to 1080p, at least at this point in time. It is simply way to expensive to buy a fast enough monitor that actually displays all that added detail. These pc fanboys will spout resolution this and fps that, but then play on a screen with a shit black level, etc etc. It doesn't make sense. Plasma is THE best current, consumer level, display tech for games. It is limited to 1080p.

...sorry to venture off like that.

It's a valid opinion, but isn't the point of the PC that you can game at any level?

You can game well on a mid range PC these days if you chose your parts well. If you're chasing the high end, it becomes an expensive endeavour that never quite ends imo.

I think there's a big difference between choosing mid range components well and cutting corners. I don't think high end is the only way to go anymore. A CPU and GPU is probably the most expensive parts, but an i5 performs amazingly and it's not high end. I think in the past it was necessary max out everything, but I'm not so sure it is any more. Plus a top end i7 and extreme range GPU costs far too much.

I hear that, and I've done it before. Now this is just myself and a few others' experience, but that moment when you're machine that you put all this money into starts hiccuping on a game youd like to play when your machine isn't that old really really sucks.

#32 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18221 posts) -

@scottpsfan14

They better get that sorted quickly because PC is not just getting good at emulating console games... Its catching up to emulating the Console Experience..... You can hook it up to your TV..... Theres Big Picture mode...... its becoming alot more convenient and easier to use..... Its even got Motion Controls.

Would you believe me If I told you I sold my PC for a 360 ? You would if I also mention that its a decision that I regret alot.

#33 Posted by donalbane (16376 posts) -

Considering the length of the console generations, if one were to get a $2K PC on the launch day of a console, if you spend a lot on games, you would save so much by taking advantage of PC game sales - assuming you were patient - that it would easily recoup the added expense, and then some. Not only that, you'd be able to play far more games that you would otherwise, but it all depends on how many games you would be getting.

#34 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@sneslover said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Thing is, the i3 suffices for now, as it's as powerful as an old i7 920 in most ways, then years later, when the i7s are as cheap as a Q8400 or something now, I'll get one to revitalize my system.

Cutting corners can pay off, if you set your expectations and do the math. For example, I can buy a Radeon 7770/ R7 250X now for 80€, overclock it and make it around XBone performance (I already got a GT 640 for like 35€, even if it's a bad card it's enough for a while with some OC, specially for the price), and buy a 80€ card two or three years from now, instead of buying a 160€ card now. Not only do I pay the same money, I can game right now (with not as much eye candy mind) and the card I'll buy later will surely be better than the 160€ card I would have bought now, all the while consuming less power (but not as good of a card, but that's the thing about cutting corners, you cut up to the point you feel comfortable).

The CPU argument I made for myself is the same, I bought an i3 3220 for 120€ that does everything I want it to now, and later on I'll get a 2600K/2700K/3770K used for like 80€ or so, when I will really need it, making the investment around 50€ less than if I bought the i7 right away (I can live with longer rendering times).

See I don't think that's the same as cutting corners. Because if you know what you're doing, you can make less work for you. I see what you're doing as smart. It's cutting corners when you don't do that stuff and buy cheap anyway.

Before I thought you meant you're going to get a new I7.

@Heirren said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@Heirren said:

Imo the only reason to game on pc is for that higher end experience, outside of some strategy games--and even those can tax the system. If you cut corners the entire pc game process becomes a big headache. With how fast tech moves in the area you really have to build to last. A couple points people gloss over:

-If you play games on a pc, a person is going to get a decent mouse/kb setup. It only makes sense as it is more comfortable and easier on that region of the body. Console gamers complain about controller ergonomics, and pc gamers seem to lie, at least on this site, about how an ergonomic keyboard isn't necessary.

-There's those that "lol" at "only" 1080p. This means the system setup will skyrocket over consoles, period.

-There's those that say "1080p@60fps". And that is fair. In this instant you weigh the quality difference. Is that slight image improvement worth the money? Here you have to factor in that a lot of the assets of games of today are designed around the current standard home television, just like they were back in the 16bit days. In a lot of cases a lower res textures will be used because the real world benefits of the added detail is not worth the processor time/performance. THey you weigh that performance increase vs the console exclusive games, etc etc.

Imo it makes the most sense to build a gaming pc dedicated to 1080p, at least at this point in time. It is simply way to expensive to buy a fast enough monitor that actually displays all that added detail. These pc fanboys will spout resolution this and fps that, but then play on a screen with a shit black level, etc etc. It doesn't make sense. Plasma is THE best current, consumer level, display tech for games. It is limited to 1080p.

...sorry to venture off like that.

It's a valid opinion, but isn't the point of the PC that you can game at any level?

You can game well on a mid range PC these days if you chose your parts well. If you're chasing the high end, it becomes an expensive endeavour that never quite ends imo.

I think there's a big difference between choosing mid range components well and cutting corners. I don't think high end is the only way to go anymore. A CPU and GPU is probably the most expensive parts, but an i5 performs amazingly and it's not high end. I think in the past it was necessary max out everything, but I'm not so sure it is any more. Plus a top end i7 and extreme range GPU costs far too much.

I hear that, and I've done it before. Now this is just myself and a few others' experience, but that moment when you're machine that you put all this money into starts hiccuping on a game youd like to play when your machine isn't that old really really sucks.

Not sure I can argue with what you're saying, but I think it comes down to what you're going for with PC gaming.

#35 Posted by foxhound_fox (90520 posts) -

When you factor in things like the Steam Summer Sale, the whole price argument in favour of consoles goes out the window.

You can buy upwards of 20 games for $60 during that sale. And we're not talking low budget indie games either... but full retail games that were released in the past couple years.

#36 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@donalbane said:

Considering the length of the console generations, if one were to get a $2K PC on the launch day of a console, if you spend a lot on games, you would save so much by taking advantage of PC game sales - assuming you were patient - that it would easily recoup the added expense, and then some. Not only that, you'd be able to play far more games that you would otherwise, but it all depends on how many games you would be getting.

I agree, but I don't think you need to even spend that much anymore. I'm really impressed with what mid range computers are capable of these days. In the past, I'd want everything maxed out, but I think times have changed. And gaming on the PC is absolute value. I don't think people need to pirate anymore really. With a little patience you can get anything accept CoD games cheap on the PC (prices always seem high to me).

#37 Edited by lostrib (41948 posts) -

I'm just going to guess this thread is already a shit fest or will be soon

#38 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@foxhound_fox said:

When you factor in things like the Steam Summer Sale, the whole price argument in favour of consoles goes out the window.

You can buy upwards of 20 games for $60 during that sale. And we're not talking low budget indie games either... but full retail games that were released in the past couple years.

The ridiculous thing is, between steam and humble bundle, the sales are all the time. It feels like steam have a sale every couple of months. I think there are other places as well but I'm not too familiar with them.

I literally don't want to think about how much I poured into my console last gen. And DLC is pure milkage, and it's a bitch for me, because I'm someone who wants the complete package, but I've had to force myself to give that up because I'd be broke.

The value absolutely can not be compared. I tried to keep this to hardware initially because I thought it might turn into some fanboy war or something.

#39 Posted by NFJSupreme (5403 posts) -

@lostrib: nope. The angry consolites must still be in school.

#40 Edited by foxhound_fox (90520 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@foxhound_fox said:

When you factor in things like the Steam Summer Sale, the whole price argument in favour of consoles goes out the window.

You can buy upwards of 20 games for $60 during that sale. And we're not talking low budget indie games either... but full retail games that were released in the past couple years.

The ridiculous thing is, between steam and humble bundle, the sales are all the time. It feels like steam have a sale every couple of months. I think there are other places as well but I'm not too familiar with them.

I literally don't want to think about how much I poured into my console last gen. And DLC is pure milkage, and it's a bitch for me, because I'm someone who wants the complete package, but I've had to force myself to give that up because I'd be broke.

The value absolutely can not be compared. I tried to keep this to hardware initially because I thought it might turn into some fanboy war or something.

Steam usually has a seasonal sale, but the Summer one always seems the biggest and with the most extreme discounts. Humble Bundle is always good, but it's highly random, so you have to keep up. Personally, I like the SSS the best, since it allows me to buy everything I want for the rest of the year for (pretty much) less than the cost of a single console game.

#41 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@NFJSupreme said:

@lostrib: nope. The angry consolites must still be in school.

LOL

@foxhound_fox said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@foxhound_fox said:

When you factor in things like the Steam Summer Sale, the whole price argument in favour of consoles goes out the window.

You can buy upwards of 20 games for $60 during that sale. And we're not talking low budget indie games either... but full retail games that were released in the past couple years.

The ridiculous thing is, between steam and humble bundle, the sales are all the time. It feels like steam have a sale every couple of months. I think there are other places as well but I'm not too familiar with them.

I literally don't want to think about how much I poured into my console last gen. And DLC is pure milkage, and it's a bitch for me, because I'm someone who wants the complete package, but I've had to force myself to give that up because I'd be broke.

The value absolutely can not be compared. I tried to keep this to hardware initially because I thought it might turn into some fanboy war or something.

Steam usually has a seasonal sale, but the Summer one always seems the biggest and with the most extreme discounts. Humble Bundle is always good, but it's highly random, so you have to keep up. Personally, I like the SSS the best, since it allows me to buy everything I want for the rest of the year for (pretty much) less than the cost of a single console game.

I agree. It's exciting how much gaming is thrown at you on the PC for amazing value.

#42 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (4799 posts) -

feels like steam have a sale every couple of months. I think there are other places as well but I'm not too familiar with them.

I use G2A. They give out key codes for different region. The prices different depending on region, but since i always buy Global and EU country keys, i don't know about region locks, etc. But man, the prices in euros are crazy. You can get a Watch Dogs key for 36 euros. Even on Steam or normal stores it's going for 60. And prices fall really fast. Just hope there's key's available.

Don't know about US, but G2A is giving global keys for 49 USD.

I also buy some boxed games i want from Amazon UK or Game UK, which are also much cheaper than Steam. Buy seasonall sales are indeed great.

#43 Posted by Motokid6 (6214 posts) -

@lostrib: Lol there was one troll lurking, but so far so good. Won't last long I imagine.

Question.. how is this argument going to apply in the future? The future being a year from now when the 800 series hits. The top of the line hardware becomes mid ranged before long and prices plumit ( more or less ). My baddass, $2.7k setup could probably be built now with $1.2k.

So you have all these pc gamers stating $400 builds you a pc that can rival consoles. That's.. kinda bull shit at the moment. But a year from now.. two years.. three. That $400 WILL buy a pc that can destroy the static consoles. My I7/Gtx 670 setup will be worth no more then that in a few years time I imagine.

So what are Sony, MS going to do with their consoles years from now when people have 4k televisions? That stuffs already going to be a hot topic come the holidays. Some REALLY cool, New tech coming out. Consoles gotta open up.. let me PLEASE upgrade these things.

#44 Edited by Old_Gooseberry (3957 posts) -

theres just no advantages at all to using a console. once they are broken down or whatever your screwed, can't play your games cause the new ones aren't backwards compatible. Investing all that money into games and then when your consoles dead, thats it, games are useless unless you are willing to buy a new one, or maybe you can't if they stop selling them.

Every PC game ever made I can play on my PC. I can even play every console game from the 1980s to the ps2 era on my PC with the exception of xbox games (since no working emulator was ever created for it).

Easy to backup saves also. I can't believe how crappy the xbox 360 was, you couldn't do proper backups of the saves most of the time, you could only move them which is completely stupid. Having one copy of a file is garbage. This was supposed to prevent what exactly? cheating? it didn't since you could use a memory card reader and copy them with a pc if you wanted to.

#45 Edited by hoosier7 (3953 posts) -

I've literally just ordered a load of parts for a new PC build. For what i wanted it'll come in at around £660, not far off double the PS4's price, you could go cheaper and have something nearer to consoles but i didn't want to be fighting with settings or compromising. Even then the CPU might need upgrading in a year or two as it's only an FX6300 so hopefully mantle will come through in full force but the 280x card looks pretty solid so i should be set for 1080p, 60fps gaming. The idea of building a PC to match the consoles now at the same price really doesn't exist here in the UK as parts are pretty expensive.

#46 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18221 posts) -

@Old_Gooseberry

As 360 owner... I can confirm all that... It realler is a Piece of Shit and exclusives are wrong... For me and the developer... I'd be doing them a favour by going back to PC.

#47 Posted by happyduds77 (1554 posts) -

@Desmonic: You didn't take into count online service subscriptions.

#48 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -

@hoosier7 said:

I've literally just ordered a load of parts for a new PC build. For what i wanted it'll come in at around £660, not far off double the PS4's price, you could go cheaper and have something nearer to consoles but i didn't want to be fighting with settings or compromising. Even then the CPU might need upgrading in a year or two as it's only an FX6300 so hopefully mantle will come through in full force but the 280x card looks pretty solid so i should be set for 1080p, 60fps gaming. The idea of building a PC to match the consoles now at the same price really doesn't exist here in the UK as parts are pretty expensive.

Just a question, why does the PC need a high end CPU when the new consoles can get away with those 1.6Ghz lower end AMD CPUs?

#49 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5136 posts) -
@Old_Gooseberry said:

theres just no advantages at all to using a console. once they are broken down or whatever your screwed, can't play your games cause the new ones aren't backwards compatible. Investing all that money into games and then when your consoles dead, thats it, games are useless unless you are willing to buy a new one, or maybe you can't if they stop selling them.

Every PC game ever made I can play on my PC. I can even play every console game from the 1980s to the ps2 era on my PC with the exception of xbox games (since no working emulator was ever created for it).

Easy to backup saves also. I can't believe how crappy the xbox 360 was, you couldn't do proper backups of the saves most of the time, you could only move them which is completely stupid. Having one copy of a file is garbage. This was supposed to prevent what exactly? cheating? it didn't since you could use a memory card reader and copy them with a pc if you wanted to.

Actually I agree with this. Specifically, you're fucked if your controller breaks and you can't get a new one.

I have an old Xbox original that I can't play anymore because I can't get a new controller for it. Tried to get one once and it was counterfeit. And I don't want someones dirty old used one.

#50 Posted by hoosier7 (3953 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@hoosier7 said:

I've literally just ordered a load of parts for a new PC build. For what i wanted it'll come in at around £660, not far off double the PS4's price, you could go cheaper and have something nearer to consoles but i didn't want to be fighting with settings or compromising. Even then the CPU might need upgrading in a year or two as it's only an FX6300 so hopefully mantle will come through in full force but the 280x card looks pretty solid so i should be set for 1080p, 60fps gaming. The idea of building a PC to match the consoles now at the same price really doesn't exist here in the UK as parts are pretty expensive.

Just a question, why does the PC need a high end CPUs when the new consoles can get away with those 1.6Ghz lower end AMD CPUs?

This is partly because i play strategy titles though, the FX6300 is a solid CPU for non-CPU heavy games but titles simply aren't optimised very well often (like Watchdogs i've heard needs an i7) so you get bottlenecking, i've heard i'll get this problem with Rome 2 which is a shame.The hope is that Mantle will help as my CPU doesn't offer the best performance in the first two cores compared to it's Intel counterparts, with Mantle aiding the use of all 6 cores and the jump to consoles being quad core, i might be able to keep performance ok for a good time.

So yeh it's optimisation and core usage, DX12 and Mantle should help and the biggest gains are being seen at the lower end CPUs. Tbh it's not that the FX6300 offers particularly poor performance especially at it's £70 price point, it's just that it's not up to the same level as my GPU so it's partly me just wanting more.

That's how i understand it in my case anyway with my ok knowledge of PC gaming.