dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6393
share rss forum feed


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

1 recommendation

reply to TheThing

Re: The future of Gaming? PC or Console?

said by TheThing:

Consoles being cheaper is an illusion.

Yet a console will play newer games fine down the line that the same PC bought at the same time usually won't.

said by TheThing:

$60+ a game? none of the games have the same replay value like F2P PC games.

Depends on your tastes... personally, there aren't many f2p games that end up being worth playing, or are only f2p in the sense of being "pay to win" or where you have to pay to unlock every single little thing to make it bearable.

I will concede there are games I like that I wouldn't conceivably want to play on anything other than a console, or at least a key/mouse setup. And the last console that really had that kind of support prominently was the Sega Dreamcast.

said by TheThing:

Additionally, a console with 2% of the functionality of a PC is garbage..

I'm not sure I would go that far, but I would also say that if that 2% if the part you give a damn about... the consoles can usually do that extremely well.

said by TheThing:

going to have to buy a new console for every app created?

Hyperbole, much?

said by TheThing:

APPS are the dumbing down of the PC world... an abomination

Something tells me you also have a smartphone. Yet it's the APPs that make that smartphone worth using. By this logic, are you also ragging on your smartphone as well?

Not to mention, PC gaming isn't perfect by a longshot. API's like OpenGL and DirectX help to a point, especially compared to all the vendor-specific optimizations for cards way back in the 9x/DOS era. We're a long way from having to command-line every single step to get a game to work. But it is by no means a perfect solution.

I personally don't see why it has to be a zero-sum situation. There are games that consoles have that are enjoyable, and will never see the light of day on PC. At the same time, there are games on PC that either end up best on that, and/or would never see the light of day on the consoles. Why not just enjoy both of them?
--
Because, f*ck Sony

me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
reply to TheThing

I pray thats its not consoles, I don't want to have to game on a locked down to hell and back box. Heck MS will ban you from live if they find out you use a KB+M on the xbox(yes its possible). No mods, on consoles, which royally sucks. Plus what are all the games made on? You sure can't code the games on a console right now.

the ps3 came out in 2006, as did the core 2 duo e6600, according to wikipedia the 8000 series cards came out in 2006. Sure you can't play at max settings but an e6600 and 8800gtx can still play most everything. Sure it wont be at 1080p max settings, but guess what? neither is a console, most of the console stuff is 800x600 now days at min settings. Plus you can overclock the 8800 and e6600(to nearly 4.0ghz in the e6600 case)

don't get me wrong I have been a console gamer most of my life, truth be told I did start out on the pc but then it got expensive cause my parents old got prebuilts. So we got a gamecube. I will never give up console gaming so long as nintendo makes consoles, but I will never buy an xbox nor a playstation, freaking halo and cod nearly killed gaming as a whole by attracting the frat bros.

Now, all that said. If you are buying a $1000+ pc for just gaming that is not what I would call a wise dession. Because a pc game to hundreds times more than a console, I personally have a roughly 1k build but I am a CS major and use my hardware for much more than gaming. You aren't restricted to just a dumb gaming box, you have a full pc. Meaning full internet access, photoshop. video editing, coding, (gaming)servers, anything, no limit to what you can do on a pc.

You can build a $600 pc that is pretty freaking kick-ass, before you say thats a lot of money keep in mind thats what the ps3 cost at launch. Not to mention when you factor in inflation its less than that. For $350-$400 you can get an apu apu(5800k) based system with 8GB ddr3 1866 ram, and play pretty much everything on the market at 720(more demanding games) to 1080p(less demanding games) at med settings. Way more than a console can do for about the same price. Not to mention all the free games(planet side 2, black mesa source, tf2, just to name a 3) that you can't get for free(some even at all) on consoles. Older DOS games via DOSbox, humble bundles for dirt cheap games, steam sales for cheap games. Sure there is the used game market for consoles(and I do partake of it regularly) that can get lower priced games, but if the ps4 has the thing where a disk is tied to a console for life then there goes the used game market for the ps4.

I love consoles, or rather what consoles used to be, I hate modern consoles trying to be locked down pcs. I think the steam box, like El Quintron mentioned, may be a strong force in the future. A prebuilt gaming pc with the price and support/ease of use of a console. Plus it can be dual booted with windows which is kinda cool. Maybe ARM could be the future too, not necessarily on tablets/smart phones, but laptops and desktops possible just replacing x86.

No one knows what the future holds for gaming, I just pray it isn't the modern/current console way.



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

I really hate this myth.

No, you can't build a $600 PC that can game. It costs $600 just to get one GPU powerful enough to handle some of this stuff to begin with!

Many people do not like to franken-build. I personally don't because then something older fails and your total cost just keeps adding up beyond if you'd just accounted for starting fresh in the first place. And you're also not counting a copy of Windows at the very least to use the hardware. And don't give me any of that Linux crap. Linux never works with new hardware, and even if you did get it to work, it's another nightmare just to get any games to work.

And what's with this "800x600" crap? The only thing that matters is what's being sent to the TV. Because as long as the TV is getting 1080p or 720p (in the case of 90~something percent of PS3 games), there's no additional input lag to suffer through when playing the game.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

3 edits

"No, you can't build a $600 PC that can game. It costs $600 just to get one GPU powerful enough to handle some of this stuff to begin with!
"

For the love of all that is holy please tell me you are trolling, I just don't want to believe I live in a world where people are THAT ignorant.

First off yes CAN build a gaming pc for $600, I know people who have done so for less. ~$100 for a 650 or 7770 $190 for the cpu+mobo(i3 and $50 motherboard, or an amd equivalent), $50 for ram(8GB ddr3), $50 for a case, $50 for a hard drive(500GB), $50 for the psu, $100 for windows. That will play pretty much everything on the market at 1080p and med settings

"And what's with this "800x600" crap? The only thing that matters is what's being sent to the TV. Because as long as the TV is getting 1080p or 720p (in the case of 90~something percent of PS3 games), there's no additional input lag to suffer through when playing the game."

800z600 = 600p. 600p IS what is being sent from the ps3 to the tv, since most modern ps3 games are far too demanding for a ps3 to render them in even 720p. the ps3 just stretches/rearranges the image to fit the higher res screen. All while the ps3 is playing games at its lowest settings.

Even if you aren't "franken building" as you so put it, for $800 you can get a decent prebuilt. Heres a good mid-range gaming pc for under $800. »www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···83227436. Will play most everything on 1080p at med settings. Or you can go to ibuypower or ecollegepc's website and customize one.

"Many people do not like to franken-build. I personally don't because then something older fails and your total cost just keeps adding up beyond if you'd just accounted for starting fresh in the first place.

And you're also not counting a copy of Windows at the very least to use the hardware. "

Yeah because consoles NEVER break, and its not like you have to buy a new console if something does break. *cough RROD cough*
And its not like with a pc all you do is replace it if something breaks. Bad hard drive? Put a new one in. Only time you need to re install windows is when you get a new cpu+mobo, and usually there is a new version of windows out by the time you do so that works out fine.

" And don't give me any of that Linux crap. Linux never works with new hardware, and even if you did get it to work, it's another nightmare just to get any games to work."

alright, just gonna say it. you are an idiot. There is just no other word I can use to describe someone who is too lazy to even learn about something before that start bashing it/spreading false information. I have not had a problem getting linux to work with new hardware, plus steambox is going to run on linux.

EDITS: a bit of clarity and re-adding stuff I accidentally backspaced on.



Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5
reply to C0deZer0

said by C0deZer0:

I really hate this myth.

No, you can't build a $600 PC that can game.

Yes you can.

said by C0deZer0:

It costs $600 just to get one GPU powerful enough to handle some of this stuff to begin with!

Pure non sense. If we're talking triple monitors, or gaming on a 27" monitor at 1440 or 1600p on ultra settings, then yes, you'll need a 500 dollar GPU. Gaming at 1080p though is a whole different story. A $200-$250 GPU will work perfect and destroy most game on high to ultra settings.

said by C0deZer0:

And what's with this "800x600" crap? The only thing that matters is what's being sent to the TV. Because as long as the TV is getting 1080p or 720p (in the case of 90~something percent of PS3 games)

Don't try and fool anyone here with this.

The vast majority of PS3 and 360 games get rendered in 720p, and sometimes even lower resolution then that.

I played Borderlands 2 on PS3 Christmas day on my 55" TV. It looked abosolutely horrendous when compared to my PC version. Stretching and upscaling a 600/720p image to 1080p, isn't true 1080p.


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to me1212

It isn't trolling. It's documented fact.

Even a recent game like Hitman Absolution requires a minimum of a 660 Ti or better to even try to play at 1080p. And back when Bioshock was new, it was pretty much required to use an 8800 series if you wanted to play with a level of graphical detail to be at least on par with what the console was doing. Bioshock on Medium already looked worse than what the console was already doing, and this was measured and documented as well.

Secondly, uh, no. 800x600 is not a resolution available on either console's output. You clearly don't own one because you'd see it plain as day yourself when setting it up. 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, and if you happen to use the VGA adaptor on 360, 1024x768 or 1366x768. The 360 can output every game in its library at 1080p. And most games on PS3 only go up to 720p; and you have some like Bioshock - again - that output in 1080p... albeit with the fake requirement to do so only via HDMI.

Thirdly, I would not trust a $50 PSU as far as I can throw it. Going cheap on PC hardware has always led to regret and failure. And of course none of this takes into account the cost of monitors, or the cost involved to appropriately play across multiple monitors. Saint's Row the Third may natively support up to 3x1 monitor setups, but I certainly wouldn't try it even on my GTX 285. And considering that at least one of my friends who went to iBuyPower has since had to file no less than two Better Business Bureau complaints and seek an attorney for the defective junk-bin they sold him, the only phrase to come to mind by someone recommending them is "I don't think so."
--
Because, f*ck Sony


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

the 600ti is for max settings AND dx11, for lower settings and dx9 a 650 will do just fine. And even IF you needed a 660ti to play those are NOT $600! So yeah thats ether trolling or outright lying.

"Secondly, uh, no. 800x600"
It RENDERS at 600p, then stretches the image to 720p or 1080p, learn a few basic things about how graphics work before you type. You are making an fool of yourself.

"The 360 can output every game in its library at 1080p"
lol no, it upsacles(stretches the image) to 1080p it renders at 600p.

"Thirdly, I would not trust a $50 PSU as far as I can throw it."
a 500w 80+ bronze is $50, hardware does not cost nearly as much as it used to.

"And of course none of this takes into account the cost of monitor"
use a tv, ether vga or hdmi and hook it to the tv.

"Saint's Row the Third may natively support up to 3x1 monitor setups"
Most people don't use it, just because it supports it doesn't mean everyone uses it.



Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to TheThing

I tend to think consoles, based upon my experience.

longevity, a game console seems to be able to last 5 years without any major invest in hardware, after initial purchase.
Where as a gaming computer can hit you for close to, if not over a thousand bucks. Then in about a year or so, you'll be wanting to upgrade the video card. And decent gaming video cards are a hundred bucks or more.

Currently my PS3 has a lot of functionality to it. I can get video from the Play station store, Hulu plus, Crackle, Amazon prime. I can download games and game content from the play station store.

So yes, computers maybe nice, but they seem to have a shorter life span when it comes to games. Yes you can extend the lifespan by buying new hardware, but that gets expensive.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to me1212

The fact still stands that you cannot build a complete system for $600 as you so claim.

Hell, a good motherboard for either platform alone already runs between $2~300, and that doesn't account RAM, CPU (keep in mind, none of the benchmarks I listed run on anything other than a 3770K, which is also a $300-something chip).

And per my experience, that $50 PSU you so laud will not only not have enough rails or connectors to properly outfit a gamer-worthy box, but will end up costing you what you spend on the rest of the system later when it (and let's not kid ourselves, it will) spectacularly combust itself in failure and take out half the hardware in the machine with it.

When I first bought my 8800GTS, it was a $400 part. Same thing with the GTX 285. Both of which I purchased the models with a higher amount of video memory for staying power. As such, it's been my experience that those GPU's outfitted with more vRAM tend to remain useful a helluva lot longer. Cheapest available 4GB RAM nVIDIA card on Newegg is about $440 as of this writing. Maybe if you're lucky, you could gamble with a refurb model for $380, if it ever becomes available.

And even The Witcher, a game that was built on DirectX 9, manages to be lauded for its graphics, but last I read an article about pushing it thanks to their release of the "extended edition" and graphics upgrades the company did, Hard|OCP wouldn't recommend anything short of an SLi or X-Fire to run with everything on.

Also, I've yet to come across a single TV that didn't look like complete ass when used as a monitor, regardless of inputs supported. Only time I've seen a TV handle a VGA signal well is when coming from the Dreamcast, and even then it admits up front it's an 800x480 signal.
--
Because, f*ck Sony



Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to TheThing

said by TheThing:

Consoles being cheaper is an illusion.

$60+ a game? none of the games have the same replay value like F2P PC games.

Additionally, a console with 2% of the functionality of a PC is garbage..

netflix, FB... blah blah... thats nothing!

going to have to buy a new console for every app created?

APPS are the dumbing down of the PC world... an abomination

I seldom pay 60 dollars for a game.
I subscribe to Blockbuster at home, and am able to rent games for my PS3. I used to use gamefly, but the Blockbuster service saves me 5 bucks a month.
Then if there is a game I want, I buy it used. Why pay 60 plus bucks for a game, when in 6 months to a year you can find it in the bargain bin for 10 to 20 bucks.
I have purchased new games that ended up in the bargain bin, because the store ordered to many copies and the game was a flop.

Why would I need to buy a new console for every app created? My 4 year old PS3 is running the new apps just fine.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.


Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to Jobbie

Nice device, but I dunno if i want to wear a visor to play a game. kinda like having to wear special glasses to watch a 3d movie. It's ok for now, but gets old fast.
Now if they had a light weight glasses that you could wear, instead of a visor, then maybe.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.


jomama

@optonline.net
reply to C0deZer0

LOL die hard console fanboy there



Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5
reply to C0deZer0

said by C0deZer0:

The fact still stands that you cannot build a complete system for $600 as you so claim.

Hell, a good motherboard for either platform alone already runs between $2~300, and that doesn't account RAM, CPU (keep in mind, none of the benchmarks I listed run on anything other than a 3770K, which is also a $300-something chip).

And per my experience, that $50 PSU you so laud will not only not have enough rails or connectors to properly outfit a gamer-worthy box, but will end up costing you what you spend on the rest of the system later when it (and let's not kid ourselves, it will) spectacularly combust itself in failure and take out half the hardware in the machine with it.

When I first bought my 8800GTS, it was a $400 part. Same thing with the GTX 285. Both of which I purchased the models with a higher amount of video memory for staying power. As such, it's been my experience that those GPU's outfitted with more vRAM tend to remain useful a helluva lot longer. Cheapest available 4GB RAM nVIDIA card on Newegg is about $440 as of this writing. Maybe if you're lucky, you could gamble with a refurb model for $380, if it ever becomes available.

Dude, I don't know where the fuck you shop for computer parts. But you need to find a new store. You're getting ripped off.

200-300 dollars for a motherboard? lol

Nothing other then a 3770k? lol

Then, you claim PC gaming takes a 600 dollar GPU, and proceed to link to an article and talk about a 660ti. Are we talking 600 dollar GPUs? Or are we now talking $280-300 GPUs? That's a far cry from 600 dollars.

You're clearly trying to drum up hyperbole regarding prices and hardware requirements for PC gaming.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to TheThing

Oh this topic again.



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to Ghastlyone

The same place you do.

Proper Motherboard ? $300.
If you bothered to read the various setups used by sites to benchmark how well a game runs, you'd see they'd either be using a $329 i7-3770K or a more expensive 3960X at $1069 to drive their numbers. Meaning anything slower would have some minutiae of lesser performance.

A 660 Ti now can be had for $289 a piece, but it isn't going to last like a GPU with 4gigs of vRAM.

You laud something like Crysis, which still has trouble running on most new systems, as the triumph of PC gaming; while I personally thought the game was boring and stupid beyond belief, that game practically requires an insane investment on hardware. But then you double-back and claim you can make a complete system for $600 - which I've yet to see any of you post - that could run the games properly. And by properly, I mean at a minimum of 1920x1080, with High (and above) settings, PhysX where supported, and do so fluidly. And by fluid, I would mean an ideal of above 60frames/sec, but I'd just as settle for something that doesn't go into stutter-fits like the Crysis SP demo would do even when its internal counter would report my system rendering at 90+fps.
--
Because, f*ck Sony

Expand your moderator at work


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

Re: The future of Gaming? PC or Console?

If you can't reply without lunging insults and resorting to name-calling, then all you're doing is making your retort look even less credible.

Since you've yet to post a complete computer system that is game worthy for this $600 price tag, and you can't prove your points, I think I'm done here.
--
Because, f*ck Sony



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to C0deZer0

Bullfucking shit. Take this console fanboy attitude elsewhere. I'm not even going to quote the bad information, and instead just offer my thoughts on the steaming pile of crap that is this thread.

• A modest Z77 motherboard usually runs just north of $100, and you can get a quality Z75 board for $85. I've used it in builds before.
• The "best" CPU for any single card setup, up to even twin dual GPUs, is an i5-3570K. More threads = more heat and a lower OCing threshold. The best setup for 2+ high-end GPUs (680s/7970s) is the i7-3820, and it is even cheaper than the i7-3770k on Newegg. What makes it better than the i5? Not anything regarding cores or clockspeed, but the ability to saturate PCIe 3.0 lanes to take full advantage of all cards. Even bringing up the 3960X shreds what little credibility you have left in the topic.
• So now more VRAM = futureproofing? LOL--do you think that GT 650M is powerful because it has 2 GB of vram??
• The Radeon 7870 is available at just over $200 (the cheapest is $210) and is capable at playing almost any game out there at 1080p.

I dislike topics like this, because it invariably degenerates into an imbecilic dick measuring contest between one camp and another. I game on a desktop, a laptop, and an xbox 360 (admittedly not as much as in the past).

Both platforms have their strengths, and consoles certain have a big appeal to the casual market, whereas desktops will always appeal to hardware geeks (like me) who enjoy fine-tuning their own builds without having anything locked down by a manufacturer.

Anyways, carry on with the misinformed bullshit. I hope prospective builders don't visit this thread.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5
reply to C0deZer0

said by C0deZer0:

Proper Motherboard ? $300.

If you're naive enough to purchase that motherboard, then you deserve to stick with your Xbox 360.

said by C0deZer0:

If you bothered to read the various setups used by sites to benchmark how well a game runs, you'd see they'd either be using a $329 i7-3770K or a more expensive 3960X at $1069 to drive their numbers. Meaning anything slower would have some minutiae of lesser performance.

I didn't waste money on an i7 for gaming luckily. I bought an i5 for a hundred dollars cheaper and getting the same performance. Review sites I've read all show the 3570k as being the best bang for the buck CPU out there, and for $100 cheaper to boot.

said by C0deZer0:

A 660 Ti now can be had for $289 a piece, but it isn't going to last like a GPU with 4gigs of vRAM.



So they were 600 dollars when they first released? That's how you're trying to portray it with that statement.

Why are you so hung up on Vram? Only thing Vram is going to help with are multi monitor setups and higher then normal resolutions. You aren't future proofing with opting for 4gbs of vram over 2gb.

said by C0deZer0:

You laud something like Crysis, which still has trouble running on most new systems, as the triumph of PC gaming; while I personally thought the game was boring and stupid beyond belief, that game practically requires an insane investment on hardware. But then you double-back and claim you can make a complete system for $600 - which I've yet to see any of you post - that could run the games properly. And by properly, I mean at a minimum of 1920x1080, with High (and above) settings, PhysX where supported, and do so fluidly. And by fluid, I would mean an ideal of above 60frames/sec, but I'd just as settle for something that doesn't go into stutter-fits like the Crysis SP demo would do even when its internal counter would report my system rendering at 90+fps.

I never lauded Crysis when it released. I didn't even play that game until about 3 months ago for the first time because it was on sale on Steam for 4.99.

People that purchased 8800 GPUs back in the day like you say you did, tend to have a sour taste in their mouths for some reason.


Blockfire
Sarcasm is my native tongue

join:2010-02-11
Wichita, KS
kudos:1
reply to C0deZer0

are you confusing the issue, the computers your talking about, the ones reviewers use to benchmark the games, are top of the line systems designed to find the breaking points.

Playable and maxed out graphics are in different ballparks.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to C0deZer0

said by C0deZer0:

Since you've yet to post a complete computer system that is game worthy for this $600 price tag, and you can't prove your points, I think I'm done here.

I've built a couple, and you can get an i3-3220, 8GB ram, Radeon 7770, and about a 500 GB HDD for that price.

Check out:
Our latest builder: »Need help building a desktop gaming computer (specifically here, CAN pricing, so US is $80-100 less)

Slightly more, but includes monitor and KB&M: »[Parts Check] Proposed student/light gaming build

This build is $850, but can max every game on ultra: »Re: Gaming build for teenager
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

1 edit
reply to C0deZer0



TigerLord
Resident pentaxian
Premium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Canada
kudos:8
reply to C0deZer0

said by C0deZer0:

Since you've yet to post a complete computer system that is game worthy for this $600 price tag

Easy:
»pc.ncix.com/ncixpc_new/ncixpc.cf···-4822591

I think you lack the proper education to be able to judge PC gaming in its current state.

You are doing our users and our forums a huge disservice. I've built over 85 PC such as this one as well as other PC with smaller budgets and if you are to consider the utilty/price ratio PC are superior to consoles in every possible way.

The only con to PC gaming is the entry price is slightly higher because a PC is a multifonction system by design and there's no way to reduce costs by making it a "gaming only" machine which is essentially what a console is.


Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TheThing

They'll both be around. Each has their own niche.

PC will obviously have more capabilities and once in a while developers will throw one or two bones to PC only.

Consoles will hold back and drag down games in general because of ports.
--
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TigerLord

said by TigerLord:

The only con to PC gaming is the entry price is slightly higher because a PC is a multifonction system by design and there's no way to reduce costs by making it a "gaming only" machine which is essentially what a console is.

Even the "lower priced console" argument is debatable because most consoles are subsidized or sold at a loss, with those costs recouped via licensing fees.

I don't *mind* my PS3 but the only reason I have it is because I started playing PC games after I bought it, if I had been playing PC games before this I would have never gotten a PS3 in the first place.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


I AM
Premium
join:2010-04-11
Ephrata, PA
kudos:4
reply to C0deZer0

It's funny though when a console first releases people line up then resale it on ebay for 1k+. I don't see the point in this, just go build a PC.

Like I said I'm playing Ps4 and Xbox 720 now while consolers wait.



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TheThing

A good link on the topic:

»www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/tech/gami···dex.html

quote:
It will likely take at least one more console cycle to gauge the long-term sustainability of dedicated gaming devices, experts say. Their ultimate survival all depends on how well console makers adapt to evolving business models and changing consumer tastes.

--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5

2 edits

Pretty good article. It makes some really good points. I thought the stats about the number of console owners who use their machines for everything else other then gaming was pretty amazing. My PS3 for years now is solely used for streaming Netfliz movies. That's it. My wife played some Red Dead Redemption briefly, and I played some Ratchet and Clank for a bit earlier this year. But that's it.

I read some of the comments afterwards in that article. Obviously all the console fanboys only read the first paragraph and then proceeded to spew non sense from there on out. LOL



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by Ghastlyone:

Pretty good article. It makes some really good points. I thought the stats about the number of console owners who use their machines for everything else other then gaming was pretty amazing. My PS3 for years now is solely used for streaming Netfliz movies. That's it. My wife played some Red Dead Redemption briefly, and I played some Ratchet and Clank for a bit earlier this year. But that's it.

I was surprised to hear that number about the console too... but I'm looking back at my usage of it and it concurs with their assessment. My wife played some Guitar Hero, and we did Resistance 3 on co-op and that was it... two games in the whole year, but a lot of Netflix.

said by Ghastlyone:

I read some of the comments afterwards in that article. Obviously all the console fanboys only read the first paragraph and then proceeded to spew non sense from there on out. LOL

I read the comments after you mentioned it... pretty lame stuff
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


TheThing

join:2012-08-10
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to TheThing

There is a difference between stupid and ignorant.

Ignorant isn't a duragatory word, it just means someone doesn't have all the information. NOt necessarily that they are non intelligent.

I think the main reason why consoles continue to exist is out of pure ignorance of how easy to use, how easy to build, how inexpensive, and how much PCs can do.

Build a $600 PC, hook it up to your HD TV, and you will never buy a console again.

Consoles will continue to exist indefinitely unfortunately, because the PC barrier will always remain.

The powers that be, can make a profit off of consoles, that's why consoles will never go away.