It's not really a big deal when you can buy all 3 consoles and still be under the cost of a complete 'no recycling' gaming rig.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
"They Wonder Why People Don't Make PC Games Any More"
- Thread starter Netrat33
- Start date
It's not really a big deal when you can buy all 3 consoles and still be under the cost of a complete 'no recycling' gaming rig.
don't know any better? Right. I have crysis, I know what the king of graphics looks like. Framerate issues? Yep, some games have em, know what game is king of them? Yep, it starts with cry and ends with sis.
ported, yes. ported well? not so much. COD4 is a rare exception. GOW for PC has huge loading transitions problems, as well as assorted performance problems, as you can read for yourself in a thread on hardforum, even for people with 4gb of ram. Assassins creed isn't out for PC yet, so we'll have to see. Splinter cell: double agent, well that was a travesty on the PC(the SP was, the MP was fine). GTA were good, though they came out so much later that it wasn't much of a big deal.
keep telling yourself you won't miss some of the console specific games, but you're just lying to yourself as a gamer. An unbiased gamer would enjoy games on every platform, because there isn't one platform that has it all.
Crysis runs really well for me, maybe you need to decrease you expectations to meet your hardwares capability or alternatively increase your hardware ability to meet your expectations?
Many of the ports appear bad because they're ports, it's only natural for a highly constrained console game to appear inferior on the PC platform. Yes there's often associated bugs with porting games although most decent games lack these bugs.
CoD4 I feel was cross developed for the PC/console and so isn't as bad as a full port which is more of an after thought, same sort of thing goes for Bioshock as well. These are of acceptable quality to me but often having glaringly stupid mistakes like mouse acceleration in Bioshock was clearly there because of cross development with consoles, same for the low FOV I suspect, a common trait of console first person shooters is to drastically lower the FOV to help save performance.
I wouldn't call these console games anyhow, the CoD franchise started on the PC, GoW was clearly designed for both PC and the Console, it runs of the unreal engine which started on the PC well before it became natively compatible with the consoles, most of the models were built to be higher quality than the console required because they knew it would appear later on the PC as soon as they were legally able (this is to do with them releasing on one platform initally and getting paid more for the exclusive, to aid sales of the platform artificially) The splinter Cell games have been cross developed from day one and this shows in the quality of the first set of games where the PC version is actually very good, only to be ruined with the newest installment where they invaded the PC version with all the typically newbish console traits (large hard to miss buttons, dumbed down stealth system etc) Assassins creed was built from the ground up for both the PC and the consoles, again cross developed with the PC version being released slightly later (hopefuly to our benefit with gameplay tweaks)
GTA series is the only really good example you give, and their only real fault as you mention is they arrive late, again I suspect this is more to do with exclusivity to boost the platform sales rather than any other specific issue with bringing the game to the platform, lord knows they sell well enough, the continual gaps are artificial in nature. Still the GTA games are fantastic and of course look better at the obligitary 2048x1536 (GTA3 doesn't seem to support 2560x1600
) and obviously with very high amounts of AA and AFAs I have explained I have played and enjoyed games on other platforms such as the 360, if I thought that they were significant enough to warrent buying the platform I would, I have enough disposable income to do so if I wish. I think my expectations are just higher after running high end PC's for coming on 10 years now.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Are you kidding me...? My friend has a 360 (well, it's his third actually, if you know what I mean) and I play with him all the time. I literally sit there and constantly find myself yelling, "Framerate!" because it stutters like crazy. It's abysmal. And even with such low and unstable framerates, the textures are blurred and jaggies prevail. I can't say my Wii doesn't do the same, but graphics weren't one of the selling points for me for the Wii (no, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Resident Evil 4 Wii, Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Galaxy were)- and good Wii games, such as those mentioned in the parenthesis, generally compensate for the lower graphical processing power of the Wii with vastly superior graphical design. Anyway, back to the 360 and PS3. I should probably mention that the aforementioned issues are not in rare or obscure games, but Halo 3, Assassin's Creed, CoD 4, etc... Hell, even when I am running my 8800GTS 640mb SSC into the ground in Crysis with 1600x1200 High (Shaders, Post-Processing, Physics, Sound, and Textures Very High) I still get a smoother experience than most 360 games give me. And, really, if you don't think Crysis is leaps and bounds above console games, just tune the graphics to High (you don't even need to go to Very High- but if you do, the difference will be ridiculously evident) and you will see (or, because you don't seem to have a console and apparently don't get much time with them, go actually play one- their graphics don't look as good on-screen as they do in screenies- ala Killzone 2? Undoubtedly).
Key word there was that the 6800 was the minimum- there are lower end cards of later generations that are "above" or at least equivalent to the 6800. Besides, a lot of people I know had a 6800 or the ATi equiv, the x800 series at one time or still do have one.
In terms of most PC's sold, most people who buy PC's don't have consoles (and nearly everyone who has a console likely has a PC of some kind- not necessarily a gaming PC though), so it's a rather fallacious statement to go by what the majority opt for. The mere fact that Best Buy and other such stores advertise respectable gaming rigs is a good sign. And, btw, in helping my sister find a good general usage PC for herself, I have found that the difference between a pre-assembled (which, in this case, means that the manufacturer- Dell, HP, etc... assembles the PC rather than you- but you can customize it) gaming PC and a decent pre-assembled general usage PC is almost exactly $300. Oh, and if you don't like paying that all at once, for a little more in the long run, you can pay in monthly installments
Should be able to pay with the money you save on games Not only can I relate, recently with the Stuntman 2 demo which frame rate drops to far below what is acceptable for me, the strange thing is most console users I know of don't notice these things which seems to suggest to me that their expectations are just THAT much different that they can't possibly appreciate the increased frame rate and fidelity of a good PC.
Lol, You must be yelling that a lot when playing crysis when it regulary dips down to 5fps.
Believe me, my expectations are higher than yours.
I've been running high end PCs for 17 years, haven't owned a console since the SNES, and I can noticed the difference between 60fps and 80fps, so I'm more of a PC fanboy than you, I'm just not biased. along with high expectations of graphics though, comes high expectation of performance.
I would accept that Crysis gives abysmal performance, IF it was about 2 times better looking it is. The trouble is it is only mildly better looking than the best graphics out, and I'm used to seeing new technology come out and not getting the framerate I desire, but crysis sets a record for low FPS.
Ok lets discuss this. Besides crysis what else is there for PC? Let's discuss PCs exclusive lineup for this year that's going to blow away console games. because the PC sure as hell hasn't done it yet.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Um... it doesn't? Not in the first half of the game anyway, and the second half of the game doesn't exist
My rig holds a very stable and smooth framerate for Crysis despite running it at the aforementioned settings. And, really, if you don't think Crysis on its highest settings looks at least 2x better than CoD 4, you might want to get your eyes checked.In terms of the PC's "killer line-up" this year, let's start with Sins of a Solar Empire. Next, we have Far Cry 2- sure, it's coming to consoles, but it looks to be PC first, with graphics and gameplay to boot. Of course, Left 4 Dead and Alan Wake will also be hitting the PC (and I can't imagine playing L4D w/anything other than a mouse). STALKER: Clear Sky will also arrive. Crysis itself is supposed to be a trilogy so I don't know how they're handling that, but apparently the North Koreans will return in Crysis 2, which makes me optimistic about (at least part of) that. Those are just a few, but there are more- I'm just having gamer's block atm.
Um... it doesn't? Not in the first half of the game anyway, and the second half of the game doesn't exist
.
It all depends on the graphics settings you use. No computer out can get a framerate I'm happy with, with the graphics settings I want. Lower the settings? No thanks, I'll wait.
2x better? Well that's your opinion. But I don't think so.
Foliage, and how it moves, crysis is leaps and bounds above any other game. Coastal environments also are a huge step above. Indoor environments, well, they leave a bit to be desired, though I'm spoiled by the creative indoor environments in games like Bioshock.
Yes those are all games I'm looking forward to, but besides stalker expansion and solar empire, they are all coming out on console platforms too. Any crysis sequels are far off so they shouldn't even be considered. Alan Wake is coming out for the xbox360 in case some people here didn't know, though of course it will look superior on the PC.
You do realize that A LOT of X360 games (shooters for sure) do not have stable frame rates right? RIGHT?! Good god I hope you are just being facetious and not just some driveling console fanboy.
Jesus Fucking Christ, why is there always one of you everywhere I look? Why are there some people who cannot write a single goddamn post without resorting to the same fucking line? If you had even read his entire fucking post, you'll notice there's nowhere that he says, "...but the X360 / PS3 / Wii could run it better." And in the last line he even says PCs are superior! Holy fuck, it's not always about Fanboy A vs. Fanboy B.
Knock it
the fuck
off.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Character models as well- especially faces (CoD 4 can pull decent stills, but the faces are nowhere near as fluid or detailed from an animation standpoint as Crysis's are; ofc, even in stills Crysis wins). Crysis also pulls-off better effects and does an excellent job particularly with grenades.
Anyway, I know that many of the mentioned games will be coming out for the 360 and/or PS3, but they generally recognize the PC as their lead platform, which usually means the PC gets a little something extra and doesn't get shafted.
Anyway, I was at a gaming convention today (of sorts)- got to see Call of Duty 4 run on every system (and played it on the PC, xD- the PC section had 6 stations running Old School DM- much more interesting than the singleplayer PS3 and four-player splitscreen 360). I'm guessing the PC's used likely had 8800GTX's or 8800 Ultra's, because they ran at what was at least 1600x1200 with at least 8xCSAA and 16xAF (possibly even more AA- didn't see a single jaggy, and I was looking when I wasn't playing) and ran at an extremely solid (at least) 60fps that didn't stutter once (in 15 minutes of play-time and at least as much watching time, across 4 different multiplayer maps). The console versions weren't so lucky, to say the least. They looked like Stranglehold in Tequilla Time compared to the PC version and did have some stuttering issues occasionally (granted, the 360 was running 4-way splitscreen, so I can't get on it too much, but the PS3, which should be more powerful than the 360 unless IW ported it underwhelmingly also stuttered occasionally...).
(My reasoning for the PC's specs- the station was run by a high-end, rather large local LAN center- well, LAN is its second biggest enterprise, its first seems to be something more akin to a cross between paintball and laser tag fused w/FPS themes IRL- and each of the six monitors was at least 20" and all were decked-out w/'07 G5 mice)
About the whole low quality games argument... why is it that Desert Combat happens to be one of the best online FPS experiences I have ever had? That was a free mod and half the games that come out today can't even match that level of quality from a bunch of "guys in a basement"?
The price of games SHOULD be cheaper, but what I'm really confused about is where the hell half of you are buying your games. Every new game that has come out lately has been available (PC games here) for $40. That isn't too unreasonable. But when your talking about console games, I really don't understand why they are so expensive. Shouldn't they be cheaper?
Also what happened to shareware? Remember playing the first episode of Doom for free?
The price of games SHOULD be cheaper, but what I'm really confused about is where the hell half of you are buying your games. Every new game that has come out lately has been available (PC games here) for $40. That isn't too unreasonable. But when your talking about console games, I really don't understand why they are so expensive. Shouldn't they be cheaper?
Also what happened to shareware? Remember playing the first episode of Doom for free?
Because those 'guys in a basement' weren't rushed by any publishers deadlines, which meant they could take their time with quality. Few developers have the freedom to do this in the business. Valve and Blizzard being ones that can. Oh and of course 3drealms
Console games are higher because you have to pay royalties to the console co to be able to put the game on their hardware. I have heard $10+ for each one sold...NOT SURE about this.
Wonder why sorry and microcrap want all of us to go to hell ?
NOW you know.
*** are there hacks for online console games, I ask because they are ruining the pc games ***
Wonder why sorry and microcrap want all of us to go to hell ?
NOW you know.
*** are there hacks for online console games, I ask because they are ruining the pc games ***
I am a big PC gamer and all, but honestly...what did/does the 2007-2008 exclusive PC lineup have over that of let's say the PS3 exclusive linup, in terms of visual attraction (to those who say PC graphics > Console graphics)?
PC exclusives (visual showpieces):
Crysis
Starcraft 2 (maybe this year)
Unreal Tournament 3 (I'll give PC that one, even though it's out on PS3 as well, but at a lower framerate)
PS3 exclusives (visual showpieces):
Motorstorm
Uncharted
Ratchet & Clank
Metal Gear Solid 4
Resistance 2
Killzone 2
LittleBigPlanet
Gran Turismo 5
Know why console games generally have better graphics nowadays? Because they sell well...yes, for that reason publishers allocate a much bigger budget to console games, and therefore their graphical engines get a lot more refinement than those on the PC. You can cry all you want about resolution and anti-aliasing...but take this for example:
Can you give me a single PC game that looks as good as Uncharted, and that runs at a solid 30fps (for 98% of the time) at 1280*720p with 4xAA? You could argue Crysis, but I doubt it will break 30fps with 4xaa (hardware AA, not edge-smoothing). Even if it does, it only matches Uncharted or barely beats it...and that's the best PC has to offer.
The only 2 games lately that really demonstrate the PC's power over consoles are UT3 and CoD4, since you can effectively run them at higher resolutions and double the framerate with respectable hardware (c2d, 8800gt)...but multiplatform games which are properly developed for the PC are few and in between.
edit: woops forgot CoD4 runs at 60fps on the console, albeit at a lower resolution.
PC exclusives (visual showpieces):
Crysis
Starcraft 2 (maybe this year)
Unreal Tournament 3 (I'll give PC that one, even though it's out on PS3 as well, but at a lower framerate)
PS3 exclusives (visual showpieces):
Motorstorm
Uncharted
Ratchet & Clank
Metal Gear Solid 4
Resistance 2
Killzone 2
LittleBigPlanet
Gran Turismo 5
Know why console games generally have better graphics nowadays? Because they sell well...yes, for that reason publishers allocate a much bigger budget to console games, and therefore their graphical engines get a lot more refinement than those on the PC. You can cry all you want about resolution and anti-aliasing...but take this for example:
Can you give me a single PC game that looks as good as Uncharted, and that runs at a solid 30fps (for 98% of the time) at 1280*720p with 4xAA? You could argue Crysis, but I doubt it will break 30fps with 4xaa (hardware AA, not edge-smoothing). Even if it does, it only matches Uncharted or barely beats it...and that's the best PC has to offer.
The only 2 games lately that really demonstrate the PC's power over consoles are UT3 and CoD4, since you can effectively run them at higher resolutions and double the framerate with respectable hardware (c2d, 8800gt)...but multiplatform games which are properly developed for the PC are few and in between.
edit: woops forgot CoD4 runs at 60fps on the console, albeit at a lower resolution.
I don't think I can find all three for less than $670 which is what I built mine for.
Honestly I can't even believe we are having a console vs pc graphics "discussion."
He said no recycling gaming rig. Do you mean to tell me that you bought a decent gaming PC (including hard drive and disk drives and case), a monitor, keyboard + mouse, and a copy of Windows for $670?
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
You're kididng me w/the comparison between Uncharted and Crysis, right? They had it running yesterday at the convention- it flat-out doesn't touch Crysis (not even Crysis on "just" High).
Except the monitor. However how many televisions are included with your console, plus if memory serves you can use Gamecube controllers with the Wii and there are probably backwards compatible controllers for othe others.
How many people need a dedicated television for gaming? Many people need a dedicated monitor for a gaming PC, as to not render previous PC's useless to the rest of the family.
It runs far better than Crysis. What PC can run Crysis on High settings with 4x FSAA? Also, Uncharted's animations far surpass Crysis. I'd still say Crysis looks better and all, but not by a large margin, and it loses a lot of that "polished" look because noone can afford to turn on anti-aliasing in the game.
Environments in Crysis definitely look better, and there's tons more foliage, but it really pales in comparison when it comes to character detail.
Either way, Crysis looking better than Uncharted, is somewhat subjective, and not an absolute truth, was what I was trying to say. And the thing is, games of this caliber are far more common on console than they are on the PC.
My thought is this:
"If you can't afford the games after building the $2000 PC, WTF did you build a $2000 PC for?"
I do not see how this is relevant? Why would I need my previous PC for anything more than storage. How much is LAN cable these days?
Then let's include the cost of extra game controllers and a big screen TV, then see which one is more expensive. Because you won't be playing on the family TV when mom and dad want to watch their soap operas. The PS3 was $600 when it came out, and Sony was supposedly still losing money on it. Selling games is how they squeeze the extra money out of you. What would all those games and accessories make the total cost of ownership on a PS3 then? $800? $1000+? Even the 360 was "expensive" when it came out and still is. Which leads to...
Most families already have a computer, and most have one way overpowered for their needs. Add a descent video card and maybe some memory. Viola! Why not "recycle" a gaming rig? We are comparing the price of brand new uber computer hardware to 3-4 yr old console hardware? I remember when all those xbox owners were claiming their graphics look better on a SDTV than a computer with a monitor... lol And now their mostly 720p games look better than 1080p (or higher) on the pc? It's all subjective people. I'm surprised we made it out of the black & white TV era. It seems some are still in it. And get off Crysis, talk about beating a dead horse. PC owners know this game is a hog, but you can make it run good and look great if you know what you are doing. What kind of bad reviews do you think the original Doom would have had if it were scalable like Crysis? OMG I can't run with the highest settings! PCs teh sucks! I'm going back to my uber Nintendo!
Kill PC gaming and consoles will be be pirated more than they thought PCs ever were. Why? Because current console "pirates" will spread the word to ex-PC gamers and average schmoes. Then it will be common knowledge on how to demo the full version of games before buying crap releases. A lot of quality software allows you to download and use unrestricted versions that have a timer. The gaming industry has done this to themselves by their precious no-return policy. How did they get away with this travesty?
Did anything ever come out of the so-called blog from the OP? Doesn't seem like news to me. Were these websites paid off to make this front page news?
Well if you have a family PC and want to get a gaming PC, you probably don't want to deprive the rest of your family of a computer to use. That is usually the case for anyone not living alone.
A TV is shared far more easily than a PC.
My thought is this:
"If you can't afford the games after building the $2000 PC, WTF did you build a $2000 PC for?"
Kind of like people buying an SUV when they can't afford the gas for it?
Wrong. Consoles are closed systems.
a) they require modification to allow playing pirated games
b) there is a large probability of having your console either: banned from the online service (Xbox Live), or having it bricked (Wii SMG update).
PCs on the other hand simply need the downloaded ISO, and a virtual drive. Anyone can do it from the comfort of their own home. Very few people have the will to go out and find a modding service. Also, if hardware modification becomes widespread, the mod providers will be easily found and jailed/fined. The risk of providing hardware mods on a large scale is much higher than the risk of simply sharing ISOs online. For this reason, console pirating will never become widespread.
The only reason PC pirating is so big as it is, is that it's all done easily and anonymously through the internet. Commodore pirating was never very big was it?
Kind of like people buying an SUV when they can't afford the gas for it?
That's actually a pretty good way of looking at it.
Still though, you get the retards that try to disregard the value of intellectual property as opposed to something physical.
consoles are like macs. Closed platforms are better for managing piracy. Gaming on consoles is fun. The only games I play on my pc are rts games and counter-strike. Every other game have had a far more pleasant experience on a console then on a pc.
Depriving one person from using the computer is "easier" than depriving the whole family from watching TV? Not understanding the logic here. Nor the thread derailing into this discussion.
When I was a kid (arguably still am!) there was countless times when I wanted to play a game on my console but couldn't because they wanted to watch TV. No, I was not one of the privileged kids who had their own TV.
Took the words right out of my mouth, thanks.
Is the breaking point of the argument what display I am using? I can hook my computer up to a TV if its that important...
a) yes, there are lots of physical modifications for consoles, but why not just use software? A bootable disc works great. Not to mention what can be done with the PSP
b) [hardware] banning is only done to a person who doesn't do it right
A lot of the info you mentioned is considered common knowledge. Hardware mods are definitely not the way to do it. There are two ways I know of which are untraceable. I'm sure there are many more considering my limited resources.
This can be stemmed back to the classic method that people stole satellite TV. It's a whole different ball game now. Kind of like how they used a PC serial port to block the hardware from being banned.
Disregard the PC monitor and the TV, both are essentially doing the same thing.
A gaming PC is roughly $1000 these days.
All 3 consoles can be had for 250 + 280 + 400 = $930. Point is, it's pretty close. And having all 3 consoles gives you far more variety and exclusives than a gaming PC.
I am a PC gamer first and foremost, but understand there is a lot to be had in current console gaming, and you can get a lot for your gaming $.
I will say console gaming is pretty expensive though. While I buy PC games that will last me a long time (lately: WoW, Orange Box, CoD4, UT3) compared to most console games, I buy console games far more often due to the sheer variety and quality of many of the games (In the past 2 months: Jeanne D'Arc, Disgaea PSP, Phoenix Wright 3, Uncharted, Ratchet, Rock Band and today: Burnout: Paradise) [although I'll multiplay there too]). Although I should get a lot of playtime out of Disgaea and Rock Band (over 100 hours each, easily), the rest will generally last me 15-20 hours a piece. The PC games on the other hand, will last me a good 100+hours each, so I know I get a lot of value...but still the cost of a gaming PC is a lot just to play a few games. Still, I could never do without PC gaming, cos I love it so much.
A gaming PC is roughly $1000 these days.
All 3 consoles can be had for 250 + 280 + 400 = $930. Point is, it's pretty close. And having all 3 consoles gives you far more variety and exclusives than a gaming PC.
I am a PC gamer first and foremost, but understand there is a lot to be had in current console gaming, and you can get a lot for your gaming $.
I will say console gaming is pretty expensive though. While I buy PC games that will last me a long time (lately: WoW, Orange Box, CoD4, UT3) compared to most console games, I buy console games far more often due to the sheer variety and quality of many of the games (In the past 2 months: Jeanne D'Arc, Disgaea PSP, Phoenix Wright 3, Uncharted, Ratchet, Rock Band and today: Burnout: Paradise) [although I'll multiplay there too]). Although I should get a lot of playtime out of Disgaea and Rock Band (over 100 hours each, easily), the rest will generally last me 15-20 hours a piece. The PC games on the other hand, will last me a good 100+hours each, so I know I get a lot of value...but still the cost of a gaming PC is a lot just to play a few games. Still, I could never do without PC gaming, cos I love it so much
.a) yes, there are lots of physical modifications for consoles, but why not just use software? A bootable disc works great. Not to mention what can be done with the PSP
b) [hardware] banning is only done to a person who doesn't do it right
A lot of the info you mentioned is considered common knowledge. Hardware mods are definitely not the way to do it. There are two ways I know of which are untraceable.
This can be stemmed back to the classic method that people stole satellite TV. It's a whole different ball game now. Kind of like how they used a PC serial port to block the hardware from being banned.
a) what you mention is only possible with the PS2...it is not the case with the PS3 or 360. PSP is the exception.
b) not really...Microsoft started detecting certain DVD-ROM hacked firmwares that were previously not detectable, and the users had their consoles banned on Xbox Live, rendering their 360s near useless (who the hell wants a 360 without XBL access?).
Also, a console like the PS3 is not good for pirating. Who the hell is going to want to download a 20-50GB ISO of a game, even if BD-RW comes down in price. I'm sure most people would rather plop down the $50, or simply rent the game.
Also, think about it, what's easier:
1) I have a gaming PC, and would like to play Crysis without paying for it. Torrent + mount.
2) I have a PSP (easiest console to mod) and would like to play Monster Hunter 2 without paying for it. In that case, you need to find a person who already has a hacked PSP, and get him to mod it for you.
3) I have a 360, and would like to play Halo 3 for free, but I'm afraid I might get banned from XBL. I doubt many people will take a step forward.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
And having all three consoles still won't give you a PC... which you need anyway...
Disregard the PC monitor and the TV, both are essentially doing the same thing.
A gaming PC is roughly $1000 these days.
All 3 consoles can be had for 250 + 280 + 400 = $930. Point is, it's pretty close. And having all 3 consoles gives you far more variety and exclusives than a gaming PC.
I am a PC gamer first and foremost, but understand there is a lot to be had in current console gaming, and you can get a lot for your gaming $.
I will say console gaming is pretty expensive though. While I buy PC games that will last me a long time (lately: WoW, Orange Box, CoD4, UT3) compared to most console games, I buy console games far more often due to the sheer variety and quality of many of the games (In the past 2 months: Jeanne D'Arc, Disgaea PSP, Phoenix Wright 3, Uncharted, Ratchet, Rock Band and today: Burnout: Paradise) [although I'll multiplay there too]). Although I should get a lot of playtime out of Disgaea and Rock Band (over 100 hours each, easily), the rest will generally last me 15-20 hours a piece. The PC games on the other hand, will last me a good 100+hours each, so I know I get a lot of value...but still the cost of a gaming PC is a lot just to play a few games. Still, I could never do without PC gaming, cos I love it so much
I agree, console gaming is great and I recommend it for a lot of people. From the years of PC gaming I have grown used to the freedom of changing settings. A typical console is too locked down for my desire.
A gaming PC is such a generic term I think this is what causes a lot of the intense discussions vs consoles. Heck my 'ol Athlon 1.2Ghz plays solitaire just fine! In fact, it has been my server for several years. I don't ever hear people mentioning that a gaming rig is still useful beyond it's life expectancy for games. A great hand-me-down. A console? it goes in the closet to later fall on your head after the bowling ball.
Here's a nice full game system for $770: http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/guide-200801.ars/2
Granted this also means you build it yourself. Subtract the monitor and speakers like for a console and we are down to ~$550. Even the prices they list on those parts aren't that great, I can find them for ~10-15% cheaper. They spent a bit more on the mouse/keyboard than I would have. Add the OS for ~$70-100 and we are talking a good gaming system (all new) for ~$600-650. It could even be hooked up as a HTPC. No it may not play Crysis at 1080p at max details, but it will play many new games at high resolutions and with good graphics settings. Also, it doesn't have a blu-ray player like the PS3, but Sony supposedly is losing money on those sales. The hi-def players for a computer will drop like a rock in the next year.
Like I said, I built mine for $670. It plays Crysis 1600x1200 everything on high, shaders/water on Vhigh. Sure I had to do a lot of price shopping and build it myself.
If you want less muss Frys Electronics is selling this for $400
http://shop3.outpost.com/product/5381928
pop in a 8800GT for another $250 that should come out roughly to $650 as well. That should be more than sufficient more most games.