If geeks love it, we’re on it

Howdy, Stranger!

You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!

Sorry, PCs! Consoles are the better deal

SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
edited Sep 2009 in Gaming
«1

Comments

  • mas0nmas0n dallas Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    OK, but consoles are still totally ghey.
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited Aug 2009
    It wouldn't be an expose from Snarkasm without the inherit snark.

    But I tend to fall into this camp so.... yeah.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Me, I own a Playstation 3, and I own no games for it. It's tough to settle this argument on cost because people get more or less utility from PCs than they do from Consoles.

    Me I prefer the convenience of a gaming computer. All of my games are within mouse clicks so i don't have to bother with disks. Most games can be purchased online so I don't have to go looking around for games or being disapointed when its rented out at blockbuster. I can do work, play a game, ragequit, go back to work, get distracted by the internet, look at porn, play another game all from the same spot. You can't beat that value.

    And, keyboard/mouse is still, by far, the best game controler ever.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Lets just first establish a fair ground rule. We should be talking about value as present tense going forward. We are here, Aug 12th 2009, we can make some educated guesses about what the future of each platform may bear, but nobody knows for certain.

    So if you are buying today, you are not getting a ten year cycle out of a 360. Mine did not get past the first ten months without a red ring, glad I had the Best Buy warranty at $129 to replace it (something I left out to be fair to consoles). And don't counter it with MS did the right thing and replaced them for free, because the average time from cardboard coffin to refurb is about eight weeks. Two months, no games because your poorly manufactured junker of a console failed, that's value!! Or you could add the $129 like I did to get a replacement plan. Either way 360 owners are getting hosed.

    You can't sell something back and not account for some kind of deficit. It's just not logical. I want to the flea market this weekend, I had a copy of Twilight Princess that it occurred to me that I would never, ever get to finish. I paid $50 for it, I sold it for $20 to recoup some expense. Snark, that is a $30 net loss, not a $30 game. Selling your games back at a fraction of what you paid for them is not adding any value for the consumer, especially when the games margins are so inflated, and the trade in value is so insultingly low. All you are doing is giving back content at a loss.

    Saying that that consoles don't have mishaps that destroy the user experience is just wrong. I can give you a hundred examples, but I will start with this recent bug destroying peoples Far Cry 2 game save files. Do these things happen a little less on console? Perhaps, but to suggest that consoles take you to this imaginary Utopia where bugs and crashes suddenly disappear is misleading.

    http://digihub.smh.com.au/node/316

    Oh, and people do need a PC. So, you have that existing $400 PC, fine, go buy a Radeon HD4770 which has fairly low requirements for power so it will work in most OEM systems and I promise you the visual experience will be at least on par with the aging consoles, and look you only spent $109.

    We could spin the numbers a million ways and never account for every scenario. What still holds true, no matter how you spin it, is that PC's for gaming are priced far more reasonable than they ever have been, and people should know so they can make an informed decision about how they want to game before they water down their experience on an aging piece of console hardware technology.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx The Dean of Computer Graphics Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    "Just to be a good sport, I’ll leave out the $250 upgrade to the processor/RAM/motherboard or GPU upgrades that gaming PCs need roughly every three years. You can factor that in if you want."

    I always hate this point. The fact is, if you're doing it right, you don't need this 'obligatory' upgrade. I built my PC in 07. I'm still playing every new game at maximum settings with no struggling. I know most PC gamers make upgrades like this regardless - not because they need to, but because they're tech enthusiasts.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    UPSLynx wrote:
    "Just to be a good sport, I’ll leave out the $250 upgrade to the processor/RAM/motherboard or GPU upgrades that gaming PCs need roughly every three years. You can factor that in if you want."

    I always hate this point. The fact is, if you're doing it right, you don't need this 'obligatory' upgrade. I built my PC in 07. I'm still playing every new game at maximum settings with no struggling. I know most PC gamers make upgrades like this regardless - not because they need to, but because they're tech enthusiasts.

    Recently there haven't been many new ground breaking engines that push hardware like cryENGINE and crytek did. For a while there with Doom 3, Farcry, and then Chrysis you really had to be the cutting edge of hardware to run those games at max settings. However, not so much in the last year or so.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Pokémaster, Watch Slut Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    ^ Ding. Those games don't get made because they don't sell, now. But even so, 3-4 years out, that title will come out and you will need that upgrade.
  • mas0nmas0n dallas Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    MAGIC wrote:
    Me I prefer the convenience of a gaming computer. All of my games are within mouse clicks so i don't have to bother with disks. Most games can be purchased online so I don't have to go looking around for games or being disapointed when its rented out at blockbuster. I can do work, play a game, ragequit, go back to work, get distracted by the internet, look at porn, play another game all from the same spot. You can't beat that value.

    And, keyboard/mouse is still, by far, the best game controler ever.

    This right here is why I don't care if my PC costs even 10 times as much as a console.

    Value is not purely a dollar sign and that is why this discussion has no end.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    If you're buying right now, Cliff, you're not getting any red rings of death - Jasper eliminated that little bug, so you can throw that little sticking point out. And Microsoft DID do right by consumers there, even if you don't like the timeline - RMAs for your computer hardware take multiple weeks as well (if you even qualify to get one). They recognized an issue with the hardware, extended the warranty, took a multiple-billion-dollar loss on it, and re-engineered it. Remember the last time something in PC hardware failed miserably resulting in ridiculously high return rates? Has nVidia fessed up to the die substrate failures yet?

    I'm similarly not sure where you're going with your deficit argument. If I buy a game for $60 and get $15 back for it on resale, that game was $45. Same thing for my next game. And my next game. And my PC ga- oh, wait. It may be a net loss, but it's the same net loss you proposed in your article. I'm really not sure how you can't call "getting money back on something" good for the consumer - since that's exactly what it is.

    You'll also note that I never once said console gaming was without bugs or crashes. What point did I make, Cliff? Console gaming is a consistent experience - you can reasonably expect everybody you're playing against online to be getting the same framerate, response time, and accuracy.

    Meanwhile, if you have that existing PC and you throw a honking graphics card in it, that's great - but maybe now you have a great graphics card with 2gb of RAM and a slow processor choking it up. What good has that done you? Now you need to spend more money to make your 4770 perform at its appropriate level. :p

    I have never - not once - said gaming PCs are too expensive. I build them routinely, and I know as well as you do what good cheap hardware is available. My point was simply that your methods getting to that point and coming up with those numbers was irresponsibly misleading, and doesn't take into account the primary situation faced by most gamers out there - they have a computer already.
    UPSLynx wrote:
    I always hate this point. The fact is, if you're doing it right, you don't need this 'obligatory' upgrade.

    What, if I might ask, was the cost of your full PC in 2007, Lynx? Does it currently run Crysis on high? Bioshock on high? Mass Effect on ultimate, or whatever the kids are calling it these days?

    Console gamers don't have to worry about what level of detail their computers can handle or their opponents are seeing. They see what everybody else does.

    As for you, Magic, I can't blame you not owning any games for the PS3... it's a pretty sad library.

    I own two consoles and a gaming computer, and find all three of them serving different purposes for me. My problem wasn't with your message, Cliff - it was with your argument.

    'Sides, you know that AMD rig won't last three years. :p
  • RyderRyder Kalamazoo, Mi Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I don't care about the cost.

    I have a PC, I am into PC's.. not Consoles. Used to have Nintendo 64 that is as far as I went.

    If I want to game it will be on my PC.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Where exactly is that console version of Crysis anyway?? hmmmm.... where did I put it, oh that's right, it won't run on the 360 or PS3.

    Matt, lets be fair, you are right, over the two-three year period, there will be some scaling to do on the PC I built, but it will always provide a visual experience at least equal to what the 360 offers, and mostly better because of its superior DirectX 10.1 capable graphics hardware.

    http://img153.imageshack.us/i/crysis2008012117242433zu9.jpg/
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited Aug 2009
    Snarkasm wrote:
    I'm similarly not sure where you're going with your deficit argument. If I buy a game for $60 and get $15 back for it on resale, that game was $45. Same thing for my next game. And my next game. And my PC ga- oh, wait. It may be a net loss, but it's the same net loss you proposed in your article. I'm really not sure how you can't call "getting money back on something" good for the consumer - since that's exactly what it is.

    That's not actually true. If you buy a PC game for $45 you still have that console game. If you buy a Console game for $60, turn around and sell it for $15. You no longer have that game. So that doesn't mean your net rice was $45, since you have nothing left to show for that $45. For your scenario to work the PC gamer would have to throw away his game.

    Even if we take that $15 and apply it as trade on the next purchase, then that game is not a $45 game, it is in fact now a $105 game since that's how much you've shelled out for what you currently have in hand.

    Where that resale value comes in is in that you are getting trade for a game you'd shelf and never play again. The pc game collects dust and you get some value back. You are recouping some of your loss.

    But the bigger point of console gaming is that you save money on being able to buy used games. That's where the savings come in, in buying a used game, not in selling a game.

    Just saying, for the point of clarification.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I don't disagree with that point at all, Kryyst - you wouldn't consider selling a game back until you'll never want to play it again.

    Hey, Cliff - how much do you think it cost the guy in hardware to get that nice little screenshot? :p

    As Cliff has said, this argument isn't even touching whether you should buy one or the other - you're going to prefer what you're going to prefer. Even the people you game with can determine which console or PC you're buying. Our points were, respectively, to show that gaming PC's aren't as expensive anymore, but that consoles still offer a competitive (if not better) price, longevity, and consistency.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    A pc that can run crysis on ult-high-awesome is significantly more than $750, even now.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Look at it as buy 5, get one free....

    Anyways, anybody who purchases a game at new retail cost is a fool when there are options such as gamefly and gamestop used games.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx The Dean of Computer Graphics Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I wasn't contributing to the argument, Snarky, I just hate that line. Everyone (especially the console specifics) fall back on that one ever. single. time.

    My PC cost ~$1000. It plays Crysis on very high. It plays bioshock on maximum with flying colors. Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, FEAR2, TF2, GRID, nothing gets passed me.

    Well, GTA4 does, but it's an awful port, and we've had that discussion before.

    I don't need an upgrade right now, and I'm at that 2-3 year threshold that everyone so enthusaistically talks about. I won't upgrade for at least a year, and even then I won't need to, but I will just because I want DX11.

    And that's the underlying point of all of this. We are enthusiasts, this whole discussion is pointless. None of us, none, will settle for the minimal, or most efficient. This is our hobby, our trade, and we'll take it to the maxiumum because that's what we do, it's what we're passionate about. I could PC game on a 17 inch CRT and crummy Apple earbuds that I have laying around for audio, and leftover Dell OEM keyboards that are PS2 interface. But I won't, because I love gaming and want the best experience. I'm going to buy a 22inch widescreen display, a digital, 500 watt 5.1 sound system, and backlit keyboard USB interface.

    It's exactly how a console gamer isn't going to play PS3 on a 20 inch CRT television with the built in speakers. They're going to buy a 40 inch plasma with HDMI cables, digital audio optical cabling to a 5.1 reciever output to a really nice sound system.

    The ground point is this - no one can make the argument that 'PC gaming is too expensive to get into' for two main reasons. 1. PC gaming is affordable as ever, and it holds the greatest value it ever has. 2. Console gamers, though entry level prices may be slightly less, will STILL pay lots of more in secondary costs to achieve the same level of clarity and experience that PC gamers are getting practically out of the box for their setups.

    Both sides of the fence will blow more and more money to make their own experiences better. And that is why it's a true hobbyist trade, and not a casual system.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    UPSLynx wrote:
    2. Console gamers, though entry level prices may be slightly less, will STILL pay lots of more in secondary costs to achieve the same level of clarity and experience that PC gamers are getting practically out of the box for their setups.

    Still going to need elaboration on that point. I had a nice TV and Z5500s set up as my home theater before I ever got a console, and I know there are people like me. What experience are you getting out of your PC that consolers need to pay for?
  • KoreishKoreish KCMO Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    It's time we settled this like men. Everyone grab your sharpest stick, IT'S TIME FOR WAAAAAAR!!!! Last man standing is right.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    ...or im right.
  • RyderRyder Kalamazoo, Mi Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    THERE IS NO WRONG.

    You guys just like to argue.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    You're wrong. Get out of here.

    Gaming computers are better!
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Pokémaster, Watch Slut Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I AM THE LAW.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx The Dean of Computer Graphics Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Snarkasm wrote:
    Still going to need elaboration on that point. I had a nice TV and Z5500s set up as my home theater before I ever got a console, and I know there are people like me. What experience are you getting out of your PC that consolers need to pay for?

    Re-read the first part of that post. we are an exclusive example. Most gamers don't have an extra set of Z-5500's lying around their house or a nice TV (HD or large format SD).

    IF you buy a console, you need extra fixings to crank it up to the HD presentation factor. I've seen so many people do it. It just becomes a cash dump. Like all serious gamers, it becomes a hobby, a cash dump.

    Oh, and you guys are still having to pay for online gaming. Archaic. (well, PS3 not entirely)

    PC's have been gaming at HD resolutions for a long long time now, and with digital displays being the defacto standard, you have HD gaming at time of purchase now. I don't believe HDTVs are standardized and affordable yet for the average household, upgrading is mandatory to achieve said HD.

    But again, it's still all pointless garbage for use to argue, because we are not like everyone else, and we don't generally care about affordable components or getting by with the minimum, because we never do.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Thrax wrote:
    .

    That period means discussion over.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    (PS3 not at all - PSN is entirely free.)

    Just like you don't buy a PC only to game, you don't buy a TV only to game. Both are items you use otherwise. As monitor sizes move into TV-sized territory, it'll be entirely moot anyway - one stop display shopping.
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited Aug 2009
    UPSLynx wrote:
    PC's have been gaming at HD resolutions for a long long time now, and with digital displays being the defacto standard, you have HD gaming at time of purchase now. I don't believe HDTVs are standardized and affordable yet for the average household, upgrading is mandatory to achieve said HD.

    The flaw in that though is that you don't need an HD tv to hook up your console. That 36" TV in the corner, that 17" pc monitor, they all do just fine. Buying a new console doesn't mean having to buy a new TV as well.
  • GnomeQueenGnomeQueen Giggles Mountain Dew Mouth Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Pardon me if this has already been said- I'm at work, and I don't have time to read all of the replies super closely- but I think a big part of the cost discussion here comes down to whether or not someone needs to buy a PC or not. When I built my gaming rig, I needed a PC, making building that computer cheaper for me than buying a console. If I had already had a working computer and just wanted to game, getting a console would be cheaper. It's all very subjective, and I think the core problem here is that everyone is determined to say that one is cheaper over the other, when really, that's rather subjective to each circumstance.

    In other news, I should probably hook up the XBox 360 thats been sitting in its box for 5 months in my room, eh?
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    The core problem was that Cliff presumed anybody looking to game would need to buy a computer anyway - and he used that $400 price tag to prop up the argument that PC gaming was cheaper.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    The reason I left the home theater peripherals and monitor out of the equation in my original piece was because I felt it was actually unbalanced and unfair to the console to include them.

    An average sized 1080P capable HDTV is much more expensive than the 24" 1080P monitor I sit in front of. I think either way, the HD set is going to be desirable in most homes, gaming on it or not, and some kind of computer monitor, weather its attached to a laptop, or desktop PC is also going to be desirable. My point being, is having one, does not preclude most people from "needing" the other.

    I still stand by the need for a PC as a valid argument. You can debate my $400 stat to a small extent, but the point is that the console does not replace a persons requirement for a home computer. If you already have it, fine, upgrade it for less than a new console and the same argument still holds water.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    So I can upgrade my socket A + agp card machine which will run all non-game related tasks (that you claim i need) for less than the price of a console?
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I have a laptop that does everything I want for my standard computing tasks. Its integrated graphics will NEVER run a reasonable game. I should what - invest in a desktop replacement for $1k, or a gaming computer and monitor for $1-1.2k?

    People have different kinds of (and some people even have no) computers, Cliff. This is what's getting you in trouble with your analysis.
  • KoreishKoreish KCMO Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Same could be said about TVs which is vital to your console argument.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Correct - but the numbers say more people have TVs than have computers.
  • mas0nmas0n dallas Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Snarkasm wrote:
    I have a laptop that does everything I want for my standard computing tasks. Its integrated graphics will NEVER run a reasonable game.

    boners.JPG

    WHAT NOW.
  • lordbeanlordbean Ontario, Canada
    edited Aug 2009
    RyderOCZ wrote:
    I don't care about the cost.

    I have a PC, I am into PC's.. not Consoles. Used to have Nintendo 64 that is as far as I went.

    If I want to game it will be on my PC.

    What he said.

    It's entirely possible consoles may be better value. I really think it depends how well you plan your PC upgrades.

    I'm an enthusiast, and my dollars are not always perfectly logically spent. However, I enjoy doing it. It's my way of life. If we define "value" as "enjoyment gained per dollar spent", I am quite certain my PC-spent dollars have more value for me than any dollars I could spend on a console.
  • NiGHTSNiGHTS San Diego Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Wait did we discuss how the PC is a dying medium for games, yet?
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Nights,

    People have been declaring the death of PC gaming ever since the Dreamcast got online. PC is the worlds most accepted and widely available format for gaming. Games for windows are not going anywhere soon.
  • NiGHTSNiGHTS San Diego Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    MMORPGs for Windows, I think you mean.
  • KoreishKoreish KCMO Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    It was long though that a good RTS would never come out on console. Then big ol' EA comes along with their recently purchased Westwood Studios and bam two decent RTS on console followed by Bungie's Halo Wars. My point being that MMORPGs will not last forever on PC.

    I'm telling you guys 5-10 years from now we will no longer see exclusive titles. And it will come down to preference only. Controller vs. Keyboard/Mouse.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Pokémaster, Watch Slut Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Fine by me. I know which one wins. ;)
  • rolleggrollrolleggroll Next to a bowl of rice
    edited Aug 2009
    Thrax wrote:
    Fine by me. I know which one wins. ;)

    Joysticks obviously!
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited Aug 2009
    Koreish wrote:
    It was long though that a good RTS would never come out on console. Then big ol' EA comes along with their recently purchased Westwood Studios and bam two decent RTS on console followed by Bungie's Halo Wars. My point being that MMORPGs will not last forever on PC.

    I'm telling you guys 5-10 years from now we will no longer see exclusive titles. And it will come down to preference only. Controller vs. Keyboard/Mouse.

    MMORPG's are already launching on consoles. Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star Online and the new Champions MMO are all on consoles.
  • MAGICMAGIC Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    If they released WoW or EQ2 for the PS3 along with a keyboard/mouse perif i would definetly buy it. The one thing that the console has on the pc is portability.
  • QuadyTheTurnipQuadyTheTurnip Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I'm at work, so this thread is tl;dr.

    But I will say this. As a guy who has no money to buy a gaming PC or a console...

    SCREW YOU ALL.

    (Alternatively, shouldn't I be writing a "Portable gaming is teh winz" now? GAMEBOY FOREVAR)
  • HawkHawk Fl. Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    This has very good portability and plays all the latest games I want to play when I'm traveling/ away from home.
    Runs Crysis fluently on highest settings in turbo mode.
    Does well with multi-threaded apps too.
    Not to mention I use it for video calls, faxing, online banking & accounting.
    I bought it for business, but also chose the specifics for gaming, watching DVD's, streaming movies over the net, etc.
    We have not had a console since our Atari with 100+ games we got at a yard sale for $40 many moons ago.
    So I can't join you on which is better.
    Just that we prefer PC's for the multiple uses that we get out of them.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=27432&stc=1&d=1250171350
    MSI GT725
    Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4G
    17" WSXGA+ screen
    4GB DDR2
    320GB Sata HD
    DVD Super Multi
    ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 / 512MB DDR3 VRAM
    Modem, Gigabit LAN and WLAN
    lappy.jpg 15.9K
  • _k__k_ P-Town, Texas Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    wait why are we even talking about how cheap either item can be? I thought IC was a little more about go big or go home, where is :life: if we are just trying to be cheap
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    _k_,

    I may be the riffraff responsible. I will say, I don't want to dissuade anyone from gaming no multiple platforms if they are fortunate enough to have the means. For some of us, we have to make some tough decisions based on the budget, and the fear of not being able to feed our kid next week. Trust me, I walk by PS3's all the time thinking "that would be so livin the icrontic life sitting next to my HDTV". Unfortunately I am left making some hard decisions and for me, PC offers a great value in comparison to a console.
  • KoreishKoreish KCMO Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    I'm :life: by going big for as little as possible.
  • _k__k_ P-Town, Texas Icrontian
    edited Aug 2009
    Koreish gets what I really meant. That kind of thinking is whole reason ICHQ is HD now.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.