The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

[quote="LordTerminal

So I should spend $700 on a PC instead? Yeah that makes sense.
[/quote]as opposed to spending $300-$400 every 5 or so years for over priced games? In the long run it's better. But it's understandable if it's too steep for some (most). But saying that, if they have an old console and old PC and eventually you'll have to upgrade anyway, so having a PC that'll play games at a satisfying level is more convenient and cheaper games.

bjj hero:
Thats fine and Dandy but comments like those will put people off trying or even looking into it. If you like gaming but have never built a PC before these comments, that go up daily anywhere gamers congregate, will most likely scare you off looking into it.

It also takes an extraordinarily thin-skinned individual to be off-put by the statement PC's can be built to the needs and expectations of the user, albeit gruffly, in response to someone who continues asserting beyond evidence, fact, and reason to the contrary.

Thats why you constantly hear PCs are more expensive. My brothers PC was put together for around the price of a lauchday console and runs whatever he wants to play but you dont read these sort of stories on the forums.

Yes, you do. There are several in this thread alone, my own included. You "constantly" hear PC's are more expensive out of the mouths of console gamers who continue parroting the point, even when evidence to the contrary is shown directly to them, and you "don't" read stories to the contrary when you've chosen to overlook them.

I have no patience, personally, arguing a PRATT, especially when those who continue to argue against it are simply seeking to indulge their own confirmation bias.

Lightknight:
Ram isn't everything when CPU/GPUs are around.

Yes, yes it is. You can have all the processing power and bandwidth in the world, but if you don't have enough physical memory to load and contain game assets, your game won't run well. You'll be lucky if it runs, especially when your much-flaunted processors start having to dedicate cycles to continually loading, unloading, and scaling assets, and caching, because of limited memory. And, by far the most important thing when building a system that ages well is to overbuild when it comes to system memory. I've dealt with way too many low-end and mid-range, and upgraded, way too many times to have any illusion otherwise.

Dollars to donuts, Microsoft and Sony are banking on their processors' power and memory bandwidth to load and unload assets only as necessary -- because that worked out so well in the long run with the 360 and PS3.

...the pc version of Skyrim was a 2GB RAM minimum requirement and it isn't just because of the ps3/360 holding it back as it certainly scaled up.

On which system(s) were the Skyrim HD texture pack made available, again? It's not like there was a major kerfluffle about the 360 and PS3 versions of Skyrim having major texture downscaling and performance issues or anything...

So, I believe the number to have been pulled that number out of thin air or from your own personal experience rather than any aggregate data. If you can show me the source I'd like to see what their thinking is.

Total RAM. Graphics cards tend to have dedicated video RAM, unless you've forgotten. Considering the Wii U, Xbone, and PS4 have integrated memory, you're shortselling PC's by not accounting for video memory.

8GB standard system memory + 1-2GB video memory = 9-10 total memory.

...even if you believed that the 6GB or higher was code for 9-10GB, it would certainly not be the norm yet.

It will be the norm among new machines by the time the Xbone and PS4 are released.

There is a line a number of years ago that said,

"What's good for GM is good for America." - spoken by some GM exec

How'd that turn out for GM, the company that went broke a couple of years ago.

Companies that believe themselves to be bigger than they or their market are, are doomed to fail. While it's understandable that Microsoft wants to expand the use of the Xbone, they are doing it at the cost of the people that actually would want to buy it. So they find themselves reaching for a demographic they think they can manufacture, but in reality are more than likely alienating those closest to them.

Eacaraxe:
Yes, yes it is. You can have all the processing power and bandwidth in the world, but if you don't have enough physical memory to load and contain game assets, your game won't run well. You'll be lucky if it runs, especially when your much-flaunted processors start having to dedicate cycles to continually loading, unloading, and scaling assets, and caching, because of limited memory. And, by far the most important thing when building a system that ages well is to overbuild when it comes to system memory. I've dealt with way too many low-end and mid-range, and upgraded, way too many times to have any illusion otherwise.

Dollars to donuts, Microsoft and Sony are banking on their processors' power and memory bandwidth to load and unload assets only as necessary -- because that worked out so well in the long run with the 360 and PS3.

You're talking about RAM that is not only 16 times more than the current generation but also significantly faster where the PS4 is concerned. The RAM was constrictive for the ps3 but not nearly so constrictive as the rediculous asset categories of the proprietary cpu. If you recall Skyrim bloating to the point of unplayability on the ps3, then you'll recall that the issue was those asset categories getting too bloated and not anything regarding RAM.

8GB of RAM, especially GDDR5 is a huge leap forward and we won't see games fully utilizing that for years down the road.

On which system(s) were the Skyrim HD texture pack made available, again? It's not like there was a major kerfluffle about the 360 and PS3 versions of Skyrim having major texture downscaling and performance issues or anything...

That's more an issue with their DLC and modding infrastructure than anything else. Microsoft charges for any additional content after the first patch and sony was finicky at best. In any event, skyrim wasn't Ultra on the consoles but it was definitely some beautiful graphics.

Total RAM. Graphics cards tend to have dedicated video RAM, unless you've forgotten. Considering the Wii U, Xbone, and PS4 have integrated memory, you're shortselling PC's by not accounting for video memory.

8GB standard system memory + 1-2GB video memory = 9-10 total memory.

That's what you were saying?! That's an odd statement to make as VRAM =/= RAM. But seeing as you did say "Total RAM" in your initial post I can believe that this was your inention.

Though it's important to note that all of the PS4's 8GB RAM is GDDR5. I wonder how much of a difference that may make. We also still don't know that much about the CPU or GPU aside from some very basic stats. With the past decade or so of games being made for 512MBs of RAM on consoles and 2GB minimum reqs on pcs, do you honestly believe that games will instantly jump to 8GBs minimums? Especially on consoles that optimize bandwidth between components at a significantly higher rate than pcs are capable of?

It will be the norm among new machines by the time the Xbone and PS4 are released.

Potentially. I don't have a crystal ball. Most people thought it would be an almost instant switch the moment x64 operating systems came out but it didn't happen. Though it's fairly clear that gaming does drive hardware advancements, so I would absolutely see the release of those systems as moving that hardware forward. If what's being sold right now is mostly 4GB or lower pcs, what makes you think 6 months will shift the goal posts entirely into the 8GB RAM with 2GB VRAM on the video card?

This is vague guessing at best even from professional market forecasters. This is also besides the point. Your statement was that the current standard is 9-10GB of RAM. Even if I am to accept that it's appropriate to group different types of RAM together, this is clearly not the case. It is not the current standard and likely will not be the standard for some time. 6 months? Maybe, but probably not until games really start to knock on 4GB as the minimum requirement.

Dexter111:
You can't take it back, it's ours now.
image

I just upgraded with a Samsung 256GB SSD and I'm going to upgrade my graphics card to a GTX 770 awaiting the arrival of my Oculus Rift soon.

I'm also looking forward to 4K monitors coming up and you can't stop me!

Is the one in front (the husky one) the Tron guy evolved?

Anyways, Im waiting for my new jobs first paycheck to come to see if im going to be splurging on anything, but I can tell you it wont be a gen 8 console... hell, with the economy the way it is, I might not buy a gen 8 console until gen 9 comes out...

LordTerminal:

Pft. Handhelds are dying off to mobile devices. Its been clear for years. Whats the point of a handheld anymore?

PS3? Why would you get that when its support is being dropped? Why would you go for highly outdated hardware in a transition?

Wii U? Its been having trouble getting ANY support from developers and customers. Hardly a worthy investment of hundreds of dollars. Its still on the same level as the PS3/360. Why even bother? Its never been known for cost, and without games its not a good investment at all. PC part manufacturers do not make parts for 8 years straight without any change. Going back to 2005 level technology on a PC is impossible because of how tech changes unless you buy it from a store that has a 2005 era PC part rotting in the back.

Where is you "superior" choice here? Where is your "savings?" Because I fucking see none. The Ps4 has a paltry 1.8 ghz of power, and the Xbox is rumored to be 1.3. The older run of the mill CPU is anywhere from 2-3 ghz. Anyone who knows anything about technology would know this, and its been confirmed since the damn reveals.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/sony-details-playstation-4-specs-8-core-amd-jaguar-cpu-8x-bl/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/APU-Jaguar-PlayStation-Kabini-Temash,21229.html

Both run the jaguar. The jaguar is a budget level tablet and laptop APU. A weak APU. Its from AMD, a company that is on its last legs and desperate to make any profit it can.

So whats the point of getting a console if its most likely going to run 500$? Whats the point when its no more powerful than a tablet? An item a lot of people have now?

Nice try insulting random people because of your own ignorance and fear though. Next time try backing up your claims with facts.

So I should spend $700 on a PC instead? Yeah that makes sense.

If handhelds are dying to mobile devices, which offer only paltry mini-game ware in the first place, then tell me why the 3DS is continuing to sell?

I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours? As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game. The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it.

s'pose the best thing to do is not.
if it doesnt interest you, dont bother, stick with what you're happy with.
pretty much the most vocal about their prefered platform are going to come off as elitist, those who dont feel like they have anything to prove and just enjoy the gaming ain't going to speak up as much. not all PC fans are snobs. just like all 360 owners arent frat boys

LordTerminal:
I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

? 3.5? I think that is a significant understatement. We're talking about 16 times the amount of RAM in a fancier GDDR5 format with a significant improvement to CPU and GPU. The improvement to the CPU is staggering when you consider that the ps3 was purposefully made to be difficult to program for by forcing developers to break up and balance all of their assets into specific categories. If any one category got too bloated then you'd have performance issues and possibly crashing.

The ps4 gets rid of that shitty proprietary format and gives us something more standard that will save developers significant time in creating ports now that everything (except the WiiU) is basically an x86 machine.

So make no mistake, this absolutely a leap ahead of the ps3 even if it is possible to pay over $1,000 for a pc that is better than the ps4. The $700 number being floated around is for machines that have similar specs but do not take into account that we don't actually know the CPU and GPU exact specs even though people throw around the 1.8 number as well as ignoring the fact that the hardware and software is optimized in a way that only standardized environments can allow. I'd like to see what people called the equivalent GPU and the equivalent RAM that brought them to a $700 setup. For example, if they priced the 8GB GDDR5 as 8GB DDR3 then I'd like to see their exact reasoning there as the former is nearly always much more expensive.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours?

If Nintendo games are your cup of tea, then by all means go that route. The point of games isn't to have the biggest and most powerful machines. It's to have the games that make you happiest. For all that my ps4 or Xbone and even my current powerful machine will be able to do, it won't be able to play Mario or Zelda games. If you were ok this past Wii generation passing up most of the major AAA titles then this next generation should be fine too.

I just know that I would not have been nearly has happy with just my Wii as I was with the other systems.

As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game.

You're absolutely correct, it does not make the game. But it does make the game more immersive and in the case of the past generation, graphical capabilities did keep some excellent titles out of the reach of Wii owners while bullshit corporate bureaucracy kept great indie games out of the hands of console owners.

The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it. s'pose the best thing to do is not.
if it doesnt interest you, dont bother, stick with what you're happy with.

The problem is that you're calling it, "it". PCs aren't a thing like the ps4 or the Xbone are a thing. Saying not to support PCs is basically saying not to support PC owners for some arbitrary reason. Like they're not nice or something.

Lightknight:

Mr Ink 5000:
I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

? 3.5? I think that is a significant understatement. We're talking about 16 times the amount of RAM in a fancier GDDR5 format with a significant improvement to CPU and GPU. The improvement to the CPU is staggering when you consider that the ps3 was purposefully made to be difficult to program for by forcing developers to break up and balance all of their assets into specific categories. If any one category got too bloated then you'd have performance issues and possibly crashing.

The ps4 gets rid of that shitty proprietary format and gives us something more standard that will save developers significant time in creating ports now that everything (except the WiiU) is basically an x86 machine.

So make no mistake, this absolutely a leap ahead of the ps3 even if it is possible to pay over $1,000 for a pc that is better than the ps4. The $700 number being floated around is for machines that have similar specs but do not take into account that we don't actually know the CPU and GPU exact specs even though people throw around the 1.8 number as well as ignoring the fact that the hardware and software is optimized in a way that only standardized environments can allow. I'd like to see what people called the equivalent GPU and the equivalent RAM that brought them to a $700 setup. For example, if they priced the 8GB GDDR5 as 8GB DDR3 then I'd like to see their exact reasoning there as the former is nearly always much more expensive.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours? As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game. The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it.

s'pose the best thing to do is not.
if it doesnt interest you, dont bother, stick with what you're happy with.
pretty much the most vocal about their prefered platform are going to come off as elitist, those who dont feel like they have anything to prove and just enjoy the gaming ain't going to speak up as much. not all PC fans are snobs. just like all 360 owners arent frat boys

If Nintendo games are your cup of tea, then by all means go that route. The point of games isn't to have the biggest and most powerful machines. It's to have the games that make you happiest. For all that my ps4 or Xbone and even my current powerful machine will be able to do, it won't be able to play Mario or Zelda games. If you were ok this past Wii generation passing up most of the major AAA titles then this next generation should be fine too.[/quote] lol, i think you quoted me by mistake there chief

Lightknight:
You're talking about RAM that is not only 16 times more than the current generation but also significantly faster where the PS4 is concerned. The RAM was constrictive for the ps3 but not nearly so constrictive as the rediculous asset categories of the proprietary cpu. If you recall Skyrim bloating to the point of unplayability on the ps3, then you'll recall that the issue was those asset categories getting too bloated and not anything regarding RAM.

I'm also bearing in mind the longevity of this current generation. Yes, the 360/PS3 generation lasted longer than practically any console generation that's come before it, but on the other hand when those consoles were announced developers raved about the insane amounts of processing power and memory they had then. It took about two years for those consoles' limitations to actually be reached, for developers to start running on fumes from an optimization perspective.

8GB of RAM, especially GDDR5 is a huge leap forward and we won't see games fully utilizing that for years down the road.

The same was said about the previous generation's 512MB RAM, and of every generation before it. You'll have to grant me a healthy amount of skepticism that 8GB is going to grant longevity, when that's already becoming the standard for even mid-range PC's.

Though it's important to note that all of the PS4's 8GB RAM is GDDR5.

Of all the next-gen consoles, the PS4 is the only one I think will have any real longevity. 8GB, albeit integrated, with none dedicated for the OS and "apps" and enough memory bandwidth to use it well.

...do you honestly believe that games will instantly jump to 8GBs minimums?

Considering the gaming trends of the past generation, I think it will within the next two or three years. The current generations' consoles, for the fact developers generally have to port or develop alongside, really have been holding games back for the last year or two.

...what makes you think 6 months will shift the goal posts entirely into the 8GB RAM with 2GB VRAM on the video card?

New mid-range PC's are already being shipped and sold with 8GB of system memory, and the "low end" systems are being increasingly marked down for clearance. Those are manufactured machines, and that tells me retailers are expecting a new wave of machines for the holiday season.

See for me I will always be a console gamer, but I have a good gaming PC so that I can dabble in that too. For me while there are many good games on PC, they're aren't enough that warrant me from stopping with consoles. Now I'm not liking where the consoles are going, definitely not getting a Xbone and I'm on the fence with the PS4, but consoles still have one hold on me that PC has yet to break and that is the exclusives. Now I know I can go with emulators, but we're no were close to getting emulators to run well from 7th generation consoles. Hell we're still having a problem trying to emulate the 6th generation when it comes to the PS2.

Unfortunately though there will always be elitists everywhere who believe that they are better than someone else. Whenever my friends use to call me a console peasant I'd just shrug it off and do what I loved doing: gaming. I'll see how this generation will go out as I'm not the kind of person who gets a console on day one so I'll wait until I see how it performs and what games it'll have. Hell that's why I'm waiting on the Wii U, and that wait will pay off soon when the games I want come out the later half of this year or next year.

Mr Ink 5000:
lol, i think you quoted me by mistake there chief

You caught me in the middle of an edit. Haha, thanks though!

Eacaraxe:
I'm also bearing in mind the longevity of this current generation. Yes, the 360/PS3 generation lasted longer than practically any console generation that's come before it, but on the other hand when those consoles were announced developers raved about the insane amounts of processing power and memory they had then. It took about two years for those consoles' limitations to actually be reached, for developers to start running on fumes from an optimization perspective.

There have been significant advancements in gaming beyond that '2 year' mark that you picked. Games coming out this year are significantly more advanced than games that came out in, say, 2008 or 2009. So I'm not sure how you gauged that 2 years was the specifically the time developers were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'd say the past two years have shown us barrel scraping but not before.

But I suppose that depends on what you mean by limitations being reached. If you mean that the pc graphics were moving beyond the consoles then that's absolutely correct and probably an accurate timeline.

The same was said about the previous generation's 512MB RAM, and of every generation before it. You'll have to grant me a healthy amount of skepticism that 8GB is going to grant longevity, when that's already becoming the standard for even mid-range PC's.

Longevity is relative. If game developers create games that are playable on the ps4 for 15 years then that's the range it'd have. As is, the PC market is a kind of measuring stick that pushes consoles along at a faster pace than they may have preferred. I think the 8GB is enough to last at least the five years. There are only so many calculations to be made in our current format of gaming. We are getting to a point where we're across the uncanny valley in a lot of ways and moving beyond that will give us significantly diminished returns (you can only get so "realistic" before it's realistic). That being said, there is a potential for new peripherals like the Oculus Rift to push computing to a new level of demand.

I'm certainly not one to say that we won't need all 8 GB soon. I've gone through too many times where 512MB, or 1GB were "more than we'll ever need" to put this in a corner. So please don't think I'm saying that. But what we needed this generation wasn't the top of the line. We needed a significant step upwards in technology that was also able to be priced in a way that people would buy it. You and I, it sounds like we bought great machines. Mine has 16GB of RAM and additional VRAM that can be bridged with more any time I deem it necessary. As such, my pc has great longevity. I also own the consoles. But there are people who can't afford a four digit console and certainly couldn't afford multiple machines.

With that in mind, I think the ps4 did almost the best that could be done.

Of all the next-gen consoles, the PS4 is the only one I think will have any real longevity. 8GB, albeit integrated, with none dedicated for the OS and "apps" and enough memory bandwidth to use it well.

Microsoft is pushing cloud processing. If that is the route they go then the exact console specs almost don't matter. I'm certainly not a fan of the Xbone but that model has more longevity behind it even if I hate the Always On requirement enough to have specifically not purchased games because of it. I don't know if Sony has any such plans.

Considering the gaming trends of the past generation, I think it will within the next two or three years. The current generations' consoles, for the fact developers generally have to port or develop alongside, really have been holding games back for the last year or two.

I don't think the two or three years is accurate, but that could be a difference of semantics like I said above. I completely agree with the last part of that paragraph though, 100%. I've also been complaining about consoles holding advancements in gaming tech for some time now.

New mid-range PC's are already being shipped and sold with 8GB of system memory, and the "low end" systems are being increasingly marked down for clearance. Those are manufactured machines, and that tells me retailers are expecting a new wave of machines for the holiday season.

Mid range/low end are subjective terms. When the top tier games are playable on 2GB RAM machines with older video cards and CPUs then 8GB machines would be functionally high tier with more powerful machines being longevity minded. My 16GB machine is what it is because I don't want to open the tower again for 4-5 years. It isn't because I've actually been using all that juice. So a high end pc should be a system that capable of handling modern games at optimum levels. 8GB machines do that just fine.

Either way, mid-range is a very different term than the "standard" machine. The standard machine, as I expressed, is still 4GB. 6 months may or may not make the difference.

The irony is they market it as an all-in-one entertainment hub, yet if you want to play old games then you'll need the 360 as well. And if you need more than 500Gbs of space then you'll have more little boxes around the system taking up space.

Oh well by not buying an Xbone it'll save me loads of cash to put toward the new PC rig I'm building and will pay for a dumptruck load of games off Steam and GOG.com

rofltehcat:
PC gaming may be more expensive in the short run but in the long run it is much cheaper.

Why? First of all, you don't need that great a rig anyways. Normally, 750€ in well balanced components (just 150€ more than a PS4 and the Xbone may be cheaper at first but will milk you with XBlive subscriptions forever) is more than enough and about continual upgrading... nobody except a few guys actually does that. Most people never upgrade and are fine. This is actually a great time to switch to PC gaming because once we have more detailed performance specs of the two next gen consoles, you can just buy a PC that is slightly better than their specs and will be fine for the whole next gaming generation.

Moreover, look at prices of console games vs. prices of PC games. I'm not just talking about brand-new titles here but also the way the prices of games change. PC games drop in prices much faster and much lower than console games. Plus you have access to a huge backlog of games you can grab for 10-15€ off steam/gog/retail budget bins. Add the great indie titles.

In the end, you also won't be bound to a single company that can basically dictate everything to you. Chances are that with the termination of used games sales, M$ will be able to dictate prices for everything. Price drops? Unlikely when they can just sell everything for 60€. They will be abusing the shit out of that monopoly and will do anything to make switching away from their system as painful as possible.
And if you get a Xbone, they'll milk you hard.

Woodsey:

Doom972:
How many PC gamers actually continuously upgrade their machine? It's expensive and pointless. I'm a PC gamer and have friends who are also PC gamers and I never witnessed this phenomenon.

A lot of people tend to rather over do the amount of problems they're going to face on a PC. The amount of times I see console players list "drivers" specifically as a reason for avoiding PC gaming is baffling.

Howling Din:
Um... Little point out. The term "Master Race" comes from racism, not elitism. Two different things, you know.

The former derives from the latter.

Not true, elitism can exist even in communities where everyone is the same race.

Howling Din:

rofltehcat:
PC gaming may be more expensive in the short run but in the long run it is much cheaper.

Why? First of all, you don't need that great a rig anyways. Normally, 750€ in well balanced components (just 150€ more than a PS4 and the Xbone may be cheaper at first but will milk you with XBlive subscriptions forever) is more than enough and about continual upgrading... nobody except a few guys actually does that. Most people never upgrade and are fine. This is actually a great time to switch to PC gaming because once we have more detailed performance specs of the two next gen consoles, you can just buy a PC that is slightly better than their specs and will be fine for the whole next gaming generation.

Moreover, look at prices of console games vs. prices of PC games. I'm not just talking about brand-new titles here but also the way the prices of games change. PC games drop in prices much faster and much lower than console games. Plus you have access to a huge backlog of games you can grab for 10-15€ off steam/gog/retail budget bins. Add the great indie titles.

In the end, you also won't be bound to a single company that can basically dictate everything to you. Chances are that with the termination of used games sales, M$ will be able to dictate prices for everything. Price drops? Unlikely when they can just sell everything for 60€. They will be abusing the shit out of that monopoly and will do anything to make switching away from their system as painful as possible.
And if you get a Xbone, they'll milk you hard.

Woodsey:

Doom972:
How many PC gamers actually continuously upgrade their machine? It's expensive and pointless. I'm a PC gamer and have friends who are also PC gamers and I never witnessed this phenomenon.

A lot of people tend to rather over do the amount of problems they're going to face on a PC. The amount of times I see console players list "drivers" specifically as a reason for avoiding PC gaming is baffling.

Howling Din:
Um... Little point out. The term "Master Race" comes from racism, not elitism. Two different things, you know.

The former derives from the latter.

Not true, elitism can exist even in communities where everyone is the same race.

I know, that's why I didn't say elitism is derived from racism.

Ugh... this is just gonna be a wall of text... there's so much I want to say... sigh...

If you read nothing else in this post, consider this: How much have you spent on your Xbox live subscription? Over $200? I spent $400+ easy, if you are an Xbox gamer, don't forget to factor that in before you start arguing about what a PC costs.

First off, I bought an XBox 360 and I got my money's worth, I loved that thing. This next generation makes me anxious, but I will keep enjoying my 360 for as long as I can.

That said, there are really only three solid arguments against PC gaming, and even as a PC gamer, I completely agree:
1-Building said gaming machine without getting screwed over by Futureshop/whatever
2-Ease of use/maintenance
3-Availability of specific titles

1-Building said gaming machine without getting screwed over by Futureshop/whatever
- People recommended Tom's hardware, I haven't dealt with them, I live in Calgary so I will probably deal with Memory Express,(If you're gonna post your machine specs and price you should also tell us where you bought it guys!)
Previously I bought a machine from a college professor who was starting a PC parts business, and I had college friends who helped me learn alot about pc's.

I know very little of the current market of hardware, but when I go to buy a computer I essentially know what questions to ask (what's a medium-high range video card, what type of hard drive storage should I use, what other types of medium-range parts would be good for a gaming machine, what's on sale), basically all you need is somebody with knowledge of current PC tech willing to give you some advice and answer questions, this really is the biggest hurdle, but if you know somebody, don't look down on them, sometimes when the PC-elitists are actually knowledgeable people, it's pretty easy to get them to help you build a machine, I expect to spend about $900 dollars on my upcoming machine (I have a half-decent monitor for general use and an HDTV with the proper ports for hardcore gaming so I don't include those in the price)

2-Ease of use/maintenance - Mostly knowing what programs to download and how to run them to keep your machine clean and efficient (anti-spyware, anti-virus, disk defragment, disabling unneeded services and programs), if you buy a machine from a local business, I'm sure they would be willing to help you understand the basics.

3-Availability of specific titles - Don't really have any points for this one, if you want to play multiplayer halo you are stuck with Microsoft sorry, but have fun. I kind of want to play the pc versions of FO3, FO:NV, and Skyrim and I'm certain they will look alot better on my new machine, and I've been extremely jealous of the fan-made Unofficial Patches because they have tons of fixes that the devs don't have time to work on, and then you have the mods. I can't even guess what PC games will offer you over consoles, I haven't been keeping up, and that could change drastically over the next couple years, I will leave that to other posters. I bought Tomb Raider last week for $25 on steam, I can't even run, it was just too good a deal to pass up. Others have said it, I will repeat it: Steam sales rock.

Sorry, I don't consider price as much of an issue, please try to understand:

-I spent about $400 on my xbox live subscription, how much did you pay? (*of course, if you have a PS3 and don't pay a subscription that takes some weight from my argument.... but I do kind of admire how Sony is treating the indie scene right now.)

-You do need a PC anyway right? I mean, you're on one right now right? What if it breaks? What if you move away from home or they give it to your sister or your Dad? That will probably cost you $200-$300 minimum anyway. I will quote another poster here:

Jodah:
The main difference is that a gaming PC is also used for everything any other computer is for. You can use it for school, work, browsing, tv, music, gaming, or anything else

And it will SCREAM at these tasks. Going from my old gaming rig to my parents' derpy machine is nails-on-a-chalkboard painful for me. But you won't be disappointed with using your gaming rig for day-to-day tasks, and if you have to buy a computer anyway, well lets just call that $250 you were going to spend anyway.

So let's go ultra-conservative and cut about $400 from the price of your new gaming rig (for me it was about $600 but whatever), that's money you were going to willingly spend anyway, but now instead you put it toward a machine that will last you about 6 years, and you will be blowing the Xbone away for all of those years. That is assuming that you already have an HDTV with ports that will work with your computer, I personally don't see why these machines have to be attached to small-ish monitors and computer desks when they are just as easy to attach to HDTV's and my living room couch.

Look, I know it can be intimidating trying to understand PC's and their hardware, even now I'm looking at these computer specs people are posting and I have no idea what any of that crap means, but I know how to look it up, and I tell you this knowledge will come in handy in whatever you do with your careers and lives. You might need another couple of computers for your kids somewhere down the line and at the very least a bit of work could save you about a thousand bucks.

Then again, if it's all about gaming to you, or if you don't feel capable enough to try to learn these sorts of things, I kinda understand, I can't really blame you. But you shouldn't be trying to convince others that ignorance is the best option, just because it's too hard for you to wrap your head around, hell, some of the people in this thread could be the next Steve Jobs or Larry Page.

bjj hero:
Can you see why people may feel barred from the club when they see an xbox 360 on the shelf for $120?

(The cheapest price I could find was about $250 canadian for a new machine with a decent hard drive. If that is a new machine please linky.)

I do sorta agree, but I thought we were talking about the upcoming generation?

I would totally recommend that a new gamer get an XBox 360, for the price it is and the games you can get for it, that is an awesome deal, I highly recommend it over a gaming PC. I'm not sure where this "new gamer" has been living the past 7 years but yeah you can't go wrong with a 360 for a great single player experience with lots of available titles.

... although, if you want to play any games online that will cost you another $60 a year, and I would assume this new gamer would prefer to buy used games as they are much cheaper(some good titles may not even be available new anymore and the digital-download prices may not have come down a reasonable amount, I happen to know that my personal favourite titles are not available either new or as a digital download), though if a game is only a year old it may ease your conscience somewhat to buy new, past a couple years or so I'm not sure they really care anymore...

takfar:
*snip alot of helpful information*

Awesome Post, you are the exact opposite of an evil PC elitist. Kudos. THIS is what the PC gamers should be doing.

All that said, I'll probably buy a PS4 sometime next gen, but I suspect they will have anti-used, always-on policies similar to Xbones, they just haven't said anything yet. But yeah, the new gaming rig is a lock, I'm getting that thing.

Pink Apocalypse:
I've had Bertha's experience, but with Elder Scrolls. And I have to agree with everything else said. Apply this Microsoft 'logic' to any other product. How would that go? 'I'm sorry, you have to get permission from Honda before selling your old Civic, and then give them a cut of your asking price.' Seriously?

I KNEW I wasn't the only person who felt this way! I knew that I couldn't have been the only person who noted the irony of companies releasing sequel after sequel, yet refusing to implement BC so you could play the first game in the series. Both concepts are frustrating in my opinion, but combining the two together just borders on stupidity and lack of respect for your previous achievements.

and, let's face it, with how the next-gens (save for the Wii U) are going, the PC would follow anyway. Deny all you like, but things do NOT exist in a vacuum and the PC is NOT some end-all, be-all utopia. I have upgraded a PC all of ONCE and I have no interest in doing it again. And I actually think the PC is part of the problem that led to this. Face it, the PC scene is not immune to what the console is doing.

I'm afraid I have to disagree when it comes to cost, When i first got into pc gaming I spent £400 building a tower, £100 more (roughly) than what a 360 was at the time but it played all the games on max for a good year or two before needing a new gpu. PC gaming isn't as expensive as you would think it's just you need to be smart enough not to just go buy the latest and greatest if your on a budget.

Also as for trouble getting games to start, more or less 80% of the time you need to do one of three things, either update your gpu drivers (10min job), update DirectX (2min job) or install/update .net framework (2min job). Our pc's may be "elite" compared to a console and the games do look better on them a lot of the time but we pay a price for it, we get treated as criminals by publishers (minus the odd few e.g. CD Projekt Red), quite a few games don't come to PC or if they do there bad ports.

Either way we make a lot of savings over the 2-3 years we don't need to upgrade, considering Distributors such as Steam often sells games for up to 90% off, so really it's not as expensive as you think.

Also forgot to mention my pc doesn't break down every 12 months (looking at you my old 360's!)

LordTerminal:

Pft. Handhelds are dying off to mobile devices. Its been clear for years. Whats the point of a handheld anymore?

PS3? Why would you get that when its support is being dropped? Why would you go for highly outdated hardware in a transition?

Wii U? Its been having trouble getting ANY support from developers and customers. Hardly a worthy investment of hundreds of dollars. Its still on the same level as the PS3/360. Why even bother? Its never been known for cost, and without games its not a good investment at all. PC part manufacturers do not make parts for 8 years straight without any change. Going back to 2005 level technology on a PC is impossible because of how tech changes unless you buy it from a store that has a 2005 era PC part rotting in the back.

Where is you "superior" choice here? Where is your "savings?" Because I fucking see none. The Ps4 has a paltry 1.8 ghz of power, and the Xbox is rumored to be 1.3. The older run of the mill CPU is anywhere from 2-3 ghz. Anyone who knows anything about technology would know this, and its been confirmed since the damn reveals.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/sony-details-playstation-4-specs-8-core-amd-jaguar-cpu-8x-bl/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/APU-Jaguar-PlayStation-Kabini-Temash,21229.html

Both run the jaguar. The jaguar is a budget level tablet and laptop APU. A weak APU. Its from AMD, a company that is on its last legs and desperate to make any profit it can.

So whats the point of getting a console if its most likely going to run 500$? Whats the point when its no more powerful than a tablet? An item a lot of people have now?

Nice try insulting random people because of your own ignorance and fear though. Next time try backing up your claims with facts.

So I should spend $700 on a PC instead? Yeah that makes sense.

If handhelds are dying to mobile devices, which offer only paltry mini-game ware in the first place, then tell me why the 3DS is continuing to sell?

I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours? As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game. The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it.

Hardware isn't about graphics. Its about what you CAN do.

Ever try running dungeon keeper on a commodore 64? It won't work because the tech is too weak to handle it.

Hardware means you can do more and handle more. Now games get so cut up you are rendering what amounts to a single room like Hitman did.

The Wii U doesn't get support because it is a mess. Not to mention it does nothing new from current gen consoles.

The 3DS only sell because people resist the mobile market. Which is growing war faster than the handheld market is. After all, why hold onto two devices when it can be just one? Handhelds are becoming redundant.

A 500-700$ PC can beat the next gen. Any PC now can beat the current generation. A PC can do more than a console, and give you more freedom. Not to mention PC games are way cheaper and more varied, way cheaper than a used console game.

Now that building a PC is what amounts to legos, there is very little reasons to say its too complicated or expensive when parts manufacturers dumbed it down by a lot.

So how the hell is all this "hard" and "elitist?" You are the one trying to shame Yahtzee, and anyone who games on PC.

LordTerminal:

Ultratwinkie:

LordTerminal:

No it's still not worth it Yahtzee. Not when it costs thousands of dollars for a man to accomplish. Shame on you and everyone who agrees with this. I'd like my games to be affordable without having to buy a bunch of random pieces that cost the price of an actual console.

Forget PC, it's the handheld market that's the true master race.

A good PC is about 700$ now. It blows consoles away.

A PC on the level of the next gen consoles is 500$ max.

Consoles are not the bargains they once were.

A WiiU costs $250. A PS3 costs $250. A 3DS costs $180. You're not convincing me. If anything, you've proven me right that gaming PCs are expensive. I'm not paying that.

So you got the systems cheap. Good for you. What are you going to do with it once you have it? Play games on it straight out of the box, right?

Wrong, you need to buy those too. When games on the 3DS go for a generous $35-$40 and the rest of the consoles $60, that's going to add up FAST over the $5 you could be spending on Steam sales. I'm not going to dig up the math again, but last I checked, it took something of an average of 11 games to make up the difference, depending on the system. That was without counting extra peripherals, or Xbox LIVE subscriptions.

You're not wrong that console gaming can be cheap, but don't think you're getting away scott-free. It's the exact same scam that razor and printer companies pull: sell the base cheap, and then lock the customer into buying the overpriced accessories. Those schemes still work because there is enough value in it for the customer, but when you get down to the dollar-for-dollar matching of another option, you will find you aren't doing as well as you could or should. Hell, PC gaming very well could be more expensive overall, but as most people in this thread have expressed, the quality of the experience is higher as well. That 10% higher price becomes at least a 15% better expereince (pulling numbers from my ass).

I would caution people in this thread talking about cheaper systems able to play new games. That's happening because games are being pegged to a standard set by consoles 8 years ago. When the XBone and PS4 are out there may be issues with devs forgetting that not everybody owns top end hardware and taking us back to actually needed expensive machines to run games.

Bravo, Yahtzee. You have seen the light.

The advantages of PC gaming are far and beyond anything most console tards can imagine. Mods. Garage studios.

I'm a PC elitist and proud of it.

And I don't care what anyone in here says, PC gaming is a shitload cheaper than consoles. Nobody owns my platform, and this creates competition. For those of you who had more important things to do in school than learn about the laws of supply and demand (you know... the driving force behind western culture) competition drives prices DOWN.

Ain't nothing going on with consoles any more. Anything worth doing these days is being done on PC.

Consoles will always dominate the market, but not because they're better. Consoles will always dominate the market because most people are too stupid or (more likely) too lazy to learn how to use a computer.

"But I can just pop in a disc and play!"

Play what? Reskins of the same six games over and over? New "versions" of madden that basically amount to roster updates?

Phht.

If you don't have the chops, fine. Stick with consoles. Keep paying $60 a title while your consumer rights are being chipped away and a cold glass eye reports your surfing habits back to microsoft. Enjoy your 4-5 year cycle of planned obsolescence.

We'll be playing Multi-Player San Andreas and Skyrim Mods. We'll be playing the newest releases and the classics. We'll even be playing forgotten gems like Enemy Unknown, Baldur's Gate, Zork and Elite all on the same machine, and all for a fraction of the cost you are pouring into the generic, homogenized sludge you call games.

And we won't miss you one damn bit.

Bringing the discussion back to the article, hearing Yahtzee say he's been more of a console gamer explains A LOT. First, getting as jaded as he is pretty much needs the level head he has to be immersed in the corporate console culture. Also not liking Borderlands 2 probably was a result of playing it on the consoles. I won't go back to find it again, but I remember him complaining about a problem that didn't exist, and also complaining about things that weren't a big deal (opening a lot of containers all at once) for me or anyone I knew.

Funny, I don't remember anyone complaining about the Super NES not having any backwards compatibility with the NES...

I'm simultaneously glad to see that a lot of people are realizing that consoles are a bunch of bullshit, and sad that it's taken this level of extremism for them to start seeing it. Sony, MS, Nintendo and Sega have all been hate-worthy ever since the concept of "exclusives" arose. The idea that you can't play a certain game or series of games unless you buy a certain piece of hardware that is identical in function to all the other hardware, to prove your obedience to a private tyranny like those 4 is nothing short of fascism. It's a totally illegitimate structure of authority and control, second only to the exponentially worse system of totalitarian control that the publishing system, driven by EA and Activision, has created. It's surprising, too, to see everyone absolutely rabid about the idea of having to be online to play their games, but it's never occurred to most people that the idea that you have to own the console to begin with or you can NEVER play a very large, and continuously growing, number of exclusive titles, is far worse in every way. We would never in a million years tolerate this in any other industry. If you could only drive on certain roads with certain cars people would be livid! Or imagine if you could only watch certain TV series on specific brands of TV. This sort of thing is utterly unthinkable, so why do we obediently accept it in the games industry? MS, Sony and Nintendo should have to come up with something about the console itself that allows you to play or enjoy games better than their competitors if they want you to buy their console, they should not be permitted to hold our games hostage to try to force people to buy their system if they want to be able to enjoy the full spectrum of gaming. This reason alone is why the PC is the "master" system, literally, by definition. It plays everything and there is no bullshit structure of control to stop it's games from being enjoyed by anyone else.

Holythirteen:

Well written, a lot of it though.

I really liked your post, well written, no ranting and you weren't patronising. I was commenting on a guy who tore a strip off a poster saying he couldnt afford a PC. His general point was "You have no idea what a gmaing PC costs, youre just parroting PCs are expensive". I pointed out that the following 2 posts after his talked about spending over $1000 on their PCs. If you regularly read things like this (which on here is a common ammount people claim to have spent) then is it any wonder people feel theyre priced out?

Personally I have a family, 5 year old son, wife mortgage and work full time and then some. I guess I may no longer be a "core gamer". I play a little bit in the evenings after bed time and if the wife takes my son to her mothers. Thats around training and keeping fit, mowing the lawn, painting the fence, maintaning the cars, fixing lights and the other boring home owner stuff. And I still kick the tar out of the 20 somethings at work when we play COD etc split screen.

At that point I wont be buying a $700 PC, I cant justify it for a hobby I spend a couple of hours on here and there. Equally I wont be buying a nex gen console until it comes in at around £200. Ill not be playing the new release AAA titles for a while until there is a price drop.

Currently I play shooters (and right now trying to love dark souls but cant, think Im missing something as everytime I equip a shield I die) on my 360 and niche turn based strategy titles, gog classics like PS:Torment, small games of Civ on my 6 year old laptop. If the laptop packs up I guess Ill have to drop around £400 on another laptop. Maybe the stars will aline and Ill need a new comsole at the at the same time and can drop £600 on a PC but if it happened right now it would be a hard sell to the rest of the family when I also need to pay for a plumber, mechanic and stuff like that.

And heres Xbox 360 for £129.99. I was £9.99 out. Its the 6th one down I think, admittedly 4GB.

The seventh console generation courted us with fine dining, and eagerly we feasted on course after course of promises for the modern era. It was only after the check arrived that we learned of the cost. And that we were going Dutch.

When I think about the "always online" or "daily check-in" requirement of the XB1 (and potentially the PS4), I immediately flash back to the whole PSN-getting-hacked debacle that basically benched the console's online functionality for a month or so. Anyone else remember that? In a mad scramble to damage control what ended up being one of the largest security breaches ever--one that involved the account details and credit card information of millions of customers all over the world--Sony at some point determined that, of the scant (terrible) options available, completely taking down its online service was the least terrible.

Just about the only thing the PS3 had going for it despite all the other awfulness surrounding that month-long headache was that, at the very least, you could still play games on the damn thing. This sort of thing will almost certainly happen to either Microsoft or Sony on some scale. If and when it does, your PS4 or XB1 is nothing more than a $500 paperweight.

Once the initial frustration and incredulity wore off, the PSN hack started to feel like yet another one of those world-altering events the young 21st century has already had far too many of. With it came a profound and unsettling awareness that we, as a society, have become so desensitized to being told that, "Hey, just FYI, this bad thing happened and, yeah, you should probably get used to it because it'll be happening a lot more from now on," barely even registers anymore. Information regarding 77 million accounts had been stolen, and the first anyone hears about it is in a 97-word blog post that can be paraphrased as, "This is what the world is like now. Sucks, huh?" You--yes you, the one reading this--deserve better than this.

It honestly astounds me how much we're willing to put up with nowadays, and I don't understand why anyone would ever willingly pay money to be complicit in their own exploitation and debasement. Ever hear the joke about the dude pissing in the bar? It goes something like this: a guy goes up to a bartender and says to him, "Hey, I bet you $500 that I can piss in that empty glass all the way down at the end of the bar." The bartender says, "No way in hell. $500? You're on." The guy hops up on the bar, unzips his fly, and proceeds to empty the contents of his bladder all over the bar, the bartender, the cash register--everywhere but in the glass at the end of the bar. The bartender, smiling broadly, despite being drenched in a stranger's urine, reaches out his hand and says, "Told you. Pay up!" The man laughs gleefully as he reaches into his pocket and hands the bartender five crisp hundred-dollar bills. The bartender, feeling very confused, asks, "What are you so happy about? You just lost $500." The man nods, finally managing to get his laughter under control and says to the bartender, "Yeah, but I just bet that guy over there $1,000 that I could piss all over you and you'd still smile about it."

There is no more apt metaphor for the coming console generation than this.

Holythirteen:
That said, there are really only three solid arguments against PC gaming, and even as a PC gamer, I completely agree:
1-Building said gaming machine without getting screwed over by Futureshop/whatever
2-Ease of use/maintenance
3-Availability of specific titles

Before I respond to what I quoted this needs to be said: You have made a good post, I salute thee.

There isn't an easy way around issue 1. I actually work for a small business that builds gaming rigs, as well as a whole bunch of other things, and the amount of times I've seen someone come into the store with that "I just spent weeks trying to get [insert company] to fix the mistakes they made with my pre-build" look on their face defies belief. I really can't comprehend how some of those larger companies keep going but its the nature of the beast for people to try and freeload off of the naivety of others. We operate a gaming cafe on the side, with consoles and PC's, and the most common reason people have for coming in to game on our PC's (besides the LAN experience) is that they are genuinely afraid of trying to build their own PC/get a pre-built from a larger distributor.

That is a _sad_ state of affairs for the entire industry, and probably why sales of PC's have been declining steadily in favour of the relatively safer laptop/touchscreen, but the kicker is that it isn't being addressed by the people who have the capacity to address it.

When it comes right down to it the pecking order for most distributors looks like this "Software>Parts>Profit>Customer" and it'll stay like that for quite some time. Parts manufacturers want licensing fees, which are exorbitant at the best of times, and usually offer a slim discount margin for bulk purchases. The lack of flexibility from manufacturers and the uncertainty in the market, been that way since 2008, as well as the manufacturers own business paradigm (BUY NEW BECAUSE BEST BECAUSE NEW BECAUSE MONEY) actively makes being a distributor like Curry's or "Futureshop" a nightmare. You can't risk buying bulk in most cases because there is no guarantee of sales, any bulk purchases have a limited shelf-life due to sudden market swings, most manufacturers won't offer their latest stuff as bulk, the manufacturers pour a lot of money into making ensuring market saturation of their latest stuff at the expense of anything else, which leads to sagging sales of anything a generation prior. I could go on for a while but I think you get the drift, any company wanting to do honest business has to jump through a lot of hoops and survive on a marginal profit at best. This is before you consider how damn near Orwellian the policies of companies like Microsoft are with regards to the distribution and installation of their software.

Companies like Futureshop etc. are little better than cowboy outfits determined to make a buck at any cost but the atmosphere in the market as a whole doesn't exactly encourage them to be any different. The only real answer to problem 1 is to solve problem 2.

As I understand it most schools, at least near where I live (Western Europe), are offering some sort of course in PC maintenance. Even if all it covers are the basic concepts I think that learning more from an early age and understanding what is being stated about various pieces of hardware would go a long way to reconciling the more "elitist" aspects of PC gaming. Oddly enough it has always been and will always be a term I've found kind of ridiculous when applied to the people I game with on the PC, we're probably the sorriest bunch of average joes you'll ever encounter.

3 is a whole other cake, and one that I don't have the stomach to properly digest. To put it bluntly I haven't found many console exclusives of late in any way interesting, the only exclusive that I was really excited about was the new WipEout for the PS3 (a comparatively cheap and utterly worthwhile choice I might add) and beyond that I really haven't seen the need. BF3 plays just as well on a PC, despite Origin, soon enough I'll be able to play both FFIX and FFVIII on the PC and my arcade shooter needs are more than fulfilled by the array of quality (and in the case of TF2 totally free) games of that sort offered through Steam, and I've never seen consoles handle a strategy game well.

I don't have the statistics to hand to properly elucidate my point but from my limited point of view the exclusivity angle isn't really selling consoles of late. I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that I purchased a 360 so I could play Halo 4, both the 360 and Halo 4 were bundled for less than 300ish (with Halo4 decals on the actual device) and I figured I'd probably buy my own copy of ODST or Reach eventually, immediately regretted the decision. Halo 4 wasn't bad or anything, it felt a bit samey but the story was good, it was the 360 that I had the most issues with. All the hoops you have to jump through on start-up, the necessity to create an "Xbox Arcade Avatar" and then the BS of having to pay a subscription to an online service!? That easily dwarfed any issues I had over the years with PC games (FO3's crashing due to multiple cores stood out), and even then once I had figured out how to make the game play the way I wanted it to play it was all fine and dandy. The 360 insisted that I wasn't really a gamer until I had an avatar/profile for a service it wanted me to pay more money for that was essentially just a glorified version of Steam or Origin. I still have the Xbox but I haven't touched it in months and until any nephews/nieces or future spawn I have reach an age where its time to introduce them to games like Halo I simply won't be using it.

To go back a bit and discuss the whole "fear of PC's" aspect.

I regularly use the SHS when talking to customers about what they should be looking for in their system (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc bask in its glory) as its a simple and relatively unbiased appraisal of what is commonly used. As such based on the current numbers this pre-built from Newegg is the business:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229362

Admittedly it has Windows 8, but apparently they're working on a cure for that, and the bundled keyboard is a bit of a gimmick but its easily above the average in all other respects and has a large easily accessible tower if you do ever feel like upgrading anything in it. And its priced for less than what I imagine the Xbone or PS4 will be.

Now I am in no way encouraging people to buy pre-built PC's but if I was to buy a pre-built from anywhere it'd Newegg, and if I wanting something that would play most current games proficiently then I'd get that.

TL;DR - There are options out there.

takfar:
The monitor is a separate entity, and may or may not be upgraded along with the PC.

The irony of this whole debate? I've hooked up my TV as a computer screen - because the PC is the best console :D

LordTerminal:

thousands of dollars

I don't know how this got started, but it's at best a gross exaggeration and at worst a total and absolute lie. Stop telling it.

I could build you a computer that's as powerful as an Xbox360 for $300 US. I could build you a computer that is more powerful than the specs on the Xbox One for $900 US.

If you're spending thousands of dollars on a pc you had better have some DNA to sequence or some feature length cgi motion pictures to render, because all that power and money is going to be wasted if you're just firing up Call of Duty for four hours after work every day.

Most people own computers, a few people own consoles, if you put both functions in the same device you make the experience of both better.

Take the price of a next gen console and the price of that console's online service for a few years and add the cost of a laptop or desktop computer and you're spending the same amount of money just not getting nearly the same benefit.

It costs the same.

WanderingFool:

Dexter111:
You can't take it back, it's ours now.
image

Is the one in front (the husky one) the Tron guy evolved?

No my friend, that's Gabe Newell, who led my people out of the darkness and into the light of a new age.

What is wrong with playing PC and console? That's what I do. Select titles on PC (exclusives of course, among others) and everything else (like "bro-friend" games cod, halo, etc.)

Never understood the whole one or the other argument.

Lord_Gremlin:
Hm, I'm still more interested in PS4 than PC. Console is supposed to be - no settings and no fiddling around required. Put the game in and play. As for xbox, MS consoles were shit, are shit and will be shit and I don't really give a shit.
Well, shit that's a lot of shit in one post.

I think you and I had very different experiences last Sony generation.

It's more like "Put the game in, wait for the install-to-hard-drive, wait for a firmware update, THEN play."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here