How to Buy a Game Console

Ah, can't edit posts, good call.

Optical drives are super important if you care at all about having almost permanent copies of anything, or simply doing things the way they were meant to be done. That does matter.
 
Honestly I kind of agree in certain aspects, especially the price. People saying "wut, you can build a gaming-capable PC for under 500!!" is just not that true imo....you DO need to spend around 700-800 + to have a WORTH-WHILE gaming PC that you wont need to upgrade soon enough. Sure you can build a piece of crap for 400 but why? If you're going to build one that cheap may as well get a console as the hardware will most likely be superior, etc
 
Ashbringer said:
1. A lot of that GDDR5 bandwidth is being shared between the CPU and GPU. There's going to be less bandwidth for the GPU on the PS4. Is that enough to equal 72GB/s of the 7770?
Click to expand...
See, a lot of PC-centric people are making all of these assumptions about the PS4. Go read a breakdown of the PS4's design. Extremetech has a good one.

The PS4 was designed to maximize the unified memory. It has two separate buses that can reserve and address the RAM independently, as if it were dedicated. On top of that, they don't have to waste time communicating with eachother. In a normal PC. there are typically wait states and redundant data communicated between the GPU and CPU, because the ram is independent and they work interdependently of eachother, but have to share at some point.
The PS4 does away with this. The CPU and GPU can see what eachother is doing via a third bus, that allows them to "snoop" on eachother, without having to explicitly stop and trade data. (AMD's desktop APUs do this too.)

The GPU has it's own 256bit bus to the GDDR5 giving it the full 176Gigabytes per second. The CPU has it's own bus, giving it 20Gigabytes per second, which is comparable to a Phenom II.


2. The CPU in the PS4 sucks. Even more so if you consider it's using GDDR5 instead of DDR3. It's literally two glorified netbook cpu's glued together.
it's true, the CPU is weak on per core performance. but PS4 games should be properly threaded as time goes on. and I'm assuming the API will allow for some Mantle-like relief on the CPU. That is an assumption, however. Anyway the point is that 1st party games will be designed with the CPU in mind and heavily threaded. So it will be a bit moot. With third party games, it may not fair so well. But, so far it's been pretty good! Even with the rushed 1st waves of games.
and the GDDR5 VS. DDR3 for CPU argument doesn't pan out. DDR3 has lower latency, yeah. But latency barely makes a difference even on an AMD FX or an i7. It's all about bandwidth nowadays. Which the PS4 has plenty of.

3. None of that matters cause we know a number of games that aren't doing 1080P. Like for example Battlefield 4. That game does barely 60 fps with 900p at medium to low settings on the PS4. A Radeon HD 7770 can do 1080p with low settings just fine, and even medium.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I am pretty sure that BF4 is the only PS4 game right now that doesn't do 1080p. There could be 1 or two others. BF4 is pretty much the worst example to hold up as proof of any weakness the PS4 may or may not have. BF4 is universally a pile of code on all platforms. It was not optimized well for any platform. PS4 included. The PS4 version's code is so similar to the PC, that it shares nearly all of the same bugs/issues as the PC version. I wouldn't be surprised if PS4 development of BF4 was carried out primarily through Sony's internal DirectX API translation tool. even after all that, they still managed 1600x900 at "high" settings.

The AMD A10-7850K is a different story. It clearly can't do 1080P at 60 fps in Battlefield 4, but it'll do it at ~30fps. Which to me is very playable.
Click to expand...
30fps at low settings, yeah.

But the point of the APU is that eventually it'll catch up to the graphics you see in the PS4, and then surpass it. Probably in a relatively short period of time. This isn't taking into account of things like Mantle, which could further boost the performance in Battlefield either.
Click to expand...
An A10-7850's core is going to surpass a 7870 core with 256-bit bus and the compute architecture of a 290x?

We could argue about the paper specs all day long, but none of that matters. We need to see what the consoles can do, and they can't do 1080P 60FPS. If a $500 PC with a 7770 can, then a $500 PC already surpasses them. If not then throw an extra $100 top the graphics card and it'll obliterate them. Think of it as the cost of 1 year of Xbox Live.
Click to expand...

A 7770 cannot do 60fps average in BF4 multiplayer on medium settings, Let alone High. Even with an i7 behind it. My 7870 on a Phenom II X6 with mixed settings, manages just under 60fps average on Siege of Shanghai at 1080p, using DirectX. mantle gave me over 25 extra fps on that average:

chameleoneel said:
I finally bothered to calculate my average frame rates


Earlier I posted raw perfoverlay frame data (CSV files) for 13.12whql, 14.1 DX11 and 14.1 Mantle.
There are two sets of data. One set is for a test server lap which was kept as similar as possible for each.
video of what a lap looks like:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wgd3gr8fdlmn429/bf4testserverrunsamplea.mp4

The other set of data is for a roughly 6 minute play session, in 64 player Siege of Shanghai. (timed for no less than 6 minutes). I used a 24/7 Siege of Shanghai server so that I could ensure reliable testing of the same map on the same server. These multiplayer sessions also had AMD Performance Monitor dumping CPU core/s and GPU core utilization data. So the CPU load is slightly higher than what it normally would be. Which is fine, because many people are running overlays and/or monitoring software anyway.

Here are the average frame rates for the test server lap:

14.1 Mantle: 108
14.1 DX11: 103
13.12 DX11: 104

You can see here, the Test server probably doesn't stress CPU performance. As such, the average performance in framerate is basically the same. There are points at which Mantle performs better in the Test Server. But overall it is pretty much the same.

But it should be noted that Mantle still delivers much more consistant frametimes. Therefore the "feel" is smoother. (of course, ignoring the VRAM hitching).

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

Average frame rates for 64 player Siege of Shanghai, during 6 minutes of play:

14.1 Mantle: 85
14.1 DX11: 58
13.12 DX11: 54


Here is where we get HUGE gains. That speaks for itself. Even despite the fact that the Mantle run was hitching every few seconds, with occasional hard stops/several frame drops, it still turns in a much higher average number.

The hitching is likely related to the fact that Mantle uses a lot more VRAM, for the same settings, on my system. which I show in this post here:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040596739&postcount=76

I have a 7870, so it is probably a bug with how Mantle is working on those cards/my system.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A given console is for a few specific games and is, by definition, of limited functionality, said limits imposed by the manufacturer.

A PC a multi-tasking tool (be it for work or play) and is limited only by the user's desires and budget.
 
Deazynthe said:
Ah, can't edit posts, good call.
Optical drives are super important if you care at all about having almost permanent copies of anything, or simply doing things the way they were meant to be done. That does matter.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a gaming machine. If you have a non-gaming need for such things, then you've already bought an optical drive and whatever else you need for that non-gaming function.

I have no idea what you could mean by "doing things the way they were meant to be done".
 
Anyway, the best comparison we have right now for game performance in reasonably optimized games, is probably Tomb Raider. as the PS4 version runs the game at 1080p with lighting and FX suprassing PC ultra, TressFX 2.0, and textures equivalent to PC high. Minimum framerate reported by Digital Foundry was 40fps, in the bigger outdoor areas that you hit about mid-game.

Meanwhile My 7870 was doing about that framerate on the overall lesser PC version, without TressFX, before the patch that fixed the bug which omitted some of the advance lighting effects.
 
Ashbringer said:
1. A lot of that GDDR5 bandwidth is being shared between the CPU and GPU. There's going to be less bandwidth for the GPU on the PS4. Is that enough to equal 72GB/s of the 7770?
Click to expand...

chameleoneel said:
See, a lot of PC-centric people are making all of these assumptions about the PS4. Go read a breakdown of the PS4's design. Extremetech has a good one.

The PS4 was designed to maximize the unified memory. It has two separate buses that can reserve and address the RAM independently, as if it were dedicated. On top of that, they don't have to waste time communicating with eachother. In a normal PC. there are typically wait states and redundant data communicated between the GPU and CPU, because the ram is independent and they work interdependently of eachother, but have to share at some point.
The PS4 does away with this. The CPU and GPU can see what eachother is doing via a third bus, that allows them to "snoop" on eachother, without having to explicitly stop and trade data. (AMD's desktop APUs do this too.)

The GPU has it's own 256bit bus to the GDDR5 giving it the full 176Gigabytes per second. The CPU has it's own bus, giving it 20Gigabytes per second, which is comparable to a Phenom II.
Click to expand...

Here's a more granular/technical breakdown of the memory subsystem in the PS4:
http://www.vgleaks.com/playstation-4-includes-huma-technology/

It's generlaly known as "HUMA", which is now in Kaveri.
 
Sate said:
We're talking about a gaming machine. If you have a non-gaming need for such things, then you've already bought an optical drive and whatever else you need for that non-gaming function.

I have no idea what you could mean by "doing things the way they were meant to be done".
Click to expand...
You'd need an optical drive for games for the same reason you'd need an optical drive for anything else. Focusing solely on "gaming" is going a bit far anyway, even if gaming is literally all you do with it... a gaming rig is probably still gonna run Maya anyway.

You buy a disc, and you use that disc for the purpose it's intended, even if it's as simple as "install and store". If you decide to get into older games--reasonable no matter what PC you have--quite a few require the disc present for very real reasons. Focusing solely on "new gaming" is going a bit far as well, even if new gaming is literally all you do with it.

(Though, admitedly, if someone were to patch something like Civilization II so that it reads FLAC dumps of its CDDA, that'd be kinda neat.)
 
How to buy a console:
1. Go to an overpriced electronics store like Best Buy.
2. Pick your poison.
3. Save a little now on hardware and bleed yourself dry on games later.
4. Be prepared to pay a monthly fee to play any game online on top of your internet fee

How to buy a PC:
1. Install Hoverhound :D
2. Got to Newegg
3. Buy all the parts on Amazon except the optic drive, get that at Newegg with an OEM copy of Windows 7
4. Play LEGO for geeks and assemble
5. Get away with just an internet subscription for most online games
6. Pay for a few subscription MMOs if you'd like
7. Install Steam, all of your old games work already!
8. Buy most of your games on sale crazy low from digital sales like Humble Bundle, GoG, GMG, Amazon and Steam, checking Cheap Shark daily helps
 
I know this is going a bit off-topic, but it's certainly not to another universe or anything like that.
 
SGA76, why not just do both? There are very few consoles that don't have some one great exclusive that make them worth owning, and none of those consoles are newer I can assure you. Glamorous console to PC don't happen as often as people think they "should"... it's still a mystery to me as to how Dark Souls got its relatively effortless one.
 
I used to buy all the consoles every gen, but I'm just tired of buying hardware for 2-3 titles when I'm just going back to my pc anyways.
Funny thing, I still play a lot of my old TG16 games, got a huge stack of disks I love to play like Ys 1-4 (though I've got 2 copies of 4, 1 original Japanese and 1 burned with the Nightwolf English patch), Lords of Thunder, Gates of Thunder, and I can't play those on console.
I like my old games without having to dig out boxes from the basement.
 
I just don't see why those have to be boxes from the basement. Make a PC Engine shelf, man; old good games deserve the treatment just as much as anything newer.
 
I dunno, the consoles do look like great bargains, I mean really, how can you beat getting a

$500 console + 10x$60 games + monthly online subscription on top of paying for internet
or
getting both systems for $900 + 20x$60 (ten "exclusive" games each system) + monthly online subscription on top of paying for internet

They seem like a pretty good options compared to getting a decent $800 worthwhile gaming PC with its many deals on games, massive selection of free games, near total backwards compatibility, ability to emulate almost any system, no extra monthly subscription fee on your internet bill to play online, and the bonus of being able to do everything else.
 
kreno said:
Well if that's gonna be the case then we should also include the price of an LCD TV in the price of the console :p

OS though is $90. Still for about $500 you can have a great machine.
Click to expand...

Linux. Or Steam OS. Problem solved.
 
Regarding the cost of Playstation Plus:

It is mitigated by a few factors:

1. every year around the holidays, you can get a year subscriptions for about $30. This is something even my dad would notice, so I don't think this is out of line to bring up. and since you are only renewing once a year, your renewal schedule coincides with deal season.

But even at full price $49.99, it's really not bad because:

1. in the roughly 3 years PS+ has been active, 125 PS3 games have been made free to subscribers. 30 vita games, 4 PS4 games so far, and 86 others (PSone/PSP). This is known as "instant game collection" At any given time, about 12 games are avaiable for free. Once you add a game to your collection, you have it "forever". Even if your PS+ subscription expires and you don't renew for 4 months. When you do renew, those games are there waiting for you.
and I'm not talking shovelware. I only just started PS+ (which I ended up getting essentially for free) in December. Since then, the games I have gotten for free are:
ICO HD
Shadow of The Colossus HD
Little Big Planet Karting
Binary Domain
Devil May Cry (the newer reboot)
Bioshock Infinite
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
Metro Last Light

I don't even own a PS4 yet, but have 4 free indie games waiting in my queue, for when i do get one.

You also get discounts on top of discounts. So far I've taken advantage of that to get an indie game called "Rain" for $4 and Final Fantasy XIII-2 for $9.

So far, all free to play games on PSN have been truly free to play. No PS+ requirement. and any pay to play games have also not required PS+.
 
Deazynthe said:
You'd need an optical drive for games for the same reason you'd need an optical drive for anything else. Focusing solely on "gaming" is going a bit far anyway, even if gaming is literally all you do with it... a gaming rig is probably still gonna run Maya anyway.

You buy a disc, and you use that disc for the purpose it's intended, even if it's as simple as "install and store". If you decide to get into older games--reasonable no matter what PC you have--quite a few require the disc present for very real reasons. Focusing solely on "new gaming" is going a bit far as well, even if new gaming is literally all you do with it.

(Though, admitedly, if someone were to patch something like Civilization II so that it reads FLAC dumps of its CDDA, that'd be kinda neat.)
Click to expand...

It does not matter if it is "going a bit far". This discussion is about gaming and consoles versus PCs. Non-gaming needs are simply not relevant to a comparison between console and PC gaming and especially the costs associated with PC gaming.

Older games are also mostly irrelevant to the consideration because neither of the consoles under discussion are backward compatible at all. That said, it is a nicety of PC's that you can find MANY older games on Steam or other digital content distribution systems. If they are old enough, you can find them playable on websites. Civilization II is on Steam. Name me any classic game you wish, and I will tell you where you can buy it digitally. If a person already has a collection of disks, then they already have a CDROM or DVDROM and thus, have no need to buy one.

Current PC gaming just doesn't revolve around plastic discs, it hasn't in some time. Welcome to 2014.
 
and if you don't think console games go on sale, you must not pay attention.

It's true, the initial price is usually full price. Whereas digital PC games often cost $10 less on release. Such is the reality of a model that emphasizes physical distribution VS. a model that emphasizes mostly digital.

I personally do not mind the higher initial cost. It is understandable and I don't have blazing internet. I would rather have the disc now, than spend hours downloading 10 - 30GB. and then spend more time downloading patches.

But console games go on sale plenty.

This is just Amazon, right this moment:
http://www.blu-ray.com/deals/?sortby=popularity&category=ps3
http://www.blu-ray.com/deals/?sortby=popularity&category=ps4
http://www.blu-ray.com/deals/?sortby=popularity&category=xbox360

A lot of games that are shared between PC and console, are actually the same price or cheaper than steam is right now.

Not to mention all of the other outlets that do sales. Target blows stuff out regularly. So does ToysRUs. Best Buy, etc.

The big problem with prices on the console side is not the cost of games on disc. It is cost of the games in digital form. There is virtually no discount for digital at release and it's fairly rare that PSN and XBL have meaningful sales on recent, digital games.
 
Only way id get into console gaming is if they legit allowed me to ise keyboard/mouse for the fps shooters. Until then and for many other reasons there is no sense in ditching my pcs. And my guest gaming pc only cost me 400-500$ and could match any console for gaming power plus all the extra capabilities...
 
PCs will always cost more than consoles, hands down. No "you're already buying a computer anyway" arguments, no "sell your old stuff" arguments, no "reuse your old kb+mouse" arguments, no "bundle deals at Microcenter" arguments. Build wishlist PCs on Newegg all you want, but most people aren't even factoring in the cost of a kb+mouse, let alone OS.

My specs are in my sig... 3570k, R9 290, cache SSD + WD Black HDD, 12GB RAM, H100i cooler, etc etc. Yes, I bargain shopped, got a Craigslist monitor, sold my old parts, got Win7 from school, used Christmas money, birthday gift cards, whatever. But the fact of the matter remains that it's an expensive PC, from the bare cost of the parts. The cost is incurred somehow regardless. A significant amount moreso than a console, especially factoring in my $100 Corsair mechanical keyboard.

I don't think the idea here should be "How do I build an Xbone-priced gaming PC" because that PC will invariably suck. Eventually, at least. A 360 can play BF4 on whatever detail settings it can play... what, medium, high? idk... But that console was released around 2006. Can you play BF4 on a PC built from 2006? What, a 7900GTX? An 8800GT? Maybe, who knows. But you're going to struggle.

I don't even really care that an Xbone can do a lot of the same things a PC can. Play movies, browse the internet, Skype, DLNA, whatever. What it comes down to, at least for me, is this: When I play Battlefield 4 on a PC, I never hear 11 year olds whining "You stowle mai hewicoptol." I never hear 22 year old thugs trying to rap over the mic. Yes, idiots exist in BF4 PC, no doubt, as do children. But it's not nearly on the same level as consoles. Because there's that price barrier and there's that technological barrier. Not saying building a PC is hard, but parents aren't building Jimmy Numbnuts a PC for his 12th birthday. So that's why I do it. That's why I deal with shitty Mantle beta drivers, updates, AV, hardware upgrades, Newegg e-blast emails, benchmark articles, temp monitoring, all that stuff. Because it's a fun hobby, and it keeps me out of the multiplayer console slums.

Seriously, go watch someone play multiplayer Ghosts in PS4 and just listen... to... the awfulness. My god.
 
CannibalTrout said:
Only way id get into console gaming is if they legit allowed me to ise keyboard/mouse for the fps shooters. Until then and for many other reasons there is no sense in ditching my pcs. And my guest gaming pc only cost me 400-500$ and could match any console for gaming power plus all the extra capabilities...
Click to expand...

Really? Please tell me the specs to it, I am curious to know how they're better than PS4.
 
RaZoRbLaDeD said:
Really? Please tell me the specs to it, I am curious to know how they're better than PS4.
Click to expand...



Controllers have gotten so good that I abandoned the KB/M combo on my last gaming rig before moving. I actually went out and bought a wired X360 controller to play my FPS games. I am glad to see that the XB1 controller has gotten even better for shooters. The use of directional force feedback is just incredible in the latest generation of console conteollers.
 
Ashbringer said:
If you don't already have a keyboard, mouse, and monitor then Windows 95 will sound very alien to you right now. Also, there's this thing called printers. It puts letters and imagines on paper, even in color! Cool, I know right? Also, monitor is completely optional as is game controller. If you have a HDMI connector on your HDTV, then that'll do. Got Xbox 360 and PS3 controllers? Those will work on PC as well, even as wireless. Just got any usb bluetooth adapter for PS3, or a Xbox 360 wireless gaming receiver. Both can get had for less then $15.

32312736-2-300-DT2.gif


The OS is the only real cost that I exempt, for a reason. There's a lot of ways to get a copy of Windows cheap or even free. For example, maybe you're a college student, then you can get a discount. Another more deviant method is to grab that old broken PC you have lying around and reuse the license. Just call Microsoft and claim that you're replacing a motherboard or something. I think this is OK with Windows 8, where you maybe breaking the law with Windows 7? I'm not sure on this, and wouldn't know why this is against the law. Back in my day, you had a CD Key then it was your copy. Not this locked to motherboard nonsense.
Click to expand...

If someone is building a brand new gaming computer, those items are needed. Homes already have a TV, they would not already have a Monitor, keyboard and mouse just lying around. Also, an OS is still needed to be purchased and a controller is needed as well. That device you showed is useless without the controller of course but I have one of those with the controller and they work great.

Look, I love computers but lets not use BS to compare a gaming computer with a console. I hate BS which is probably one of the reasons a lot of people just go with consoles instead of the "gaming PC".
 
ManofGod said:
If someone is building a brand new gaming computer, those items are needed. Homes already have a TV, they would not already have a Monitor, keyboard and mouse just lying around. Also, an OS is still needed to be purchased and a controller is needed as well. That device you showed is useless without the controller of course but I have one of those with the controller and they work great.

Look, I love computers but lets not use BS to compare a gaming computer with a console. I hate BS which is probably one of the reasons a lot of people just go with consoles instead of the "gaming PC".
Click to expand...

Homes already have computers too. Even grandma's and grandpa's have a poor little uncleaned celeron based HP sitting somewhere that comes with - you guessed it, a keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
 
chameleoneel said:
and the GDDR5 VS. DDR3 for CPU argument doesn't pan out. DDR3 has lower latency, yeah. But latency barely makes a difference even on an AMD FX or an i7. It's all about bandwidth nowadays. Which the PS4 has plenty of.
Click to expand...
No it's not about bandwidth. If that were the case we'd be using GDDR5 for desktop PCs instead of DDR3/4.

As I said earlier, I am pretty sure that BF4 is the only PS4 game right now that doesn't do 1080p. There could be 1 or two others. BF4 is pretty much the worst example to hold up as proof of any weakness the PS4 may or may not have. BF4 is universally a pile of code on all platforms. It was not optimized well for any platform. PS4 included. The PS4 version's code is so similar to the PC, that it shares nearly all of the same bugs/issues as the PC version. I wouldn't be surprised if PS4 development of BF4 was carried out primarily through Sony's internal DirectX API translation tool. even after all that, they still managed 1600x900 at "high" settings.
Click to expand...
That's making a lot of assumptions.

1. You assume the code is crap, even though we know there's other games that can't do 1080P.

2. The settings in BF4 PS4 are set to high, when I've had people describe it as low or medium.

3. They're using a DirectX translation tool for the PS4?

An A10-7850's core is going to surpass a 7870 core with 256-bit bus and the compute architecture of a 290x?
Click to expand...
Futuristically speaking. Nothing today can match the PS4, in terms of graphics. But when PCs move to DDR4 and future APU's gain in performance, we'll see it match and surpass the PS4. In the mean time your FM2+ motherboard will likely support these newer APU's.


A 7770 cannot do 60fps average in BF4 multiplayer on medium settings, Let alone High. Even with an i7 behind it. My 7870 on a Phenom II X6 with mixed settings, manages just under 60fps average on Siege of Shanghai at 1080p, using DirectX. mantle gave me over 25 extra fps on that average:
Click to expand...
Depends on the settings. It can do 60 fps 1080P if you disable FXAA and use low or medium quality settings. MAX MAX settings, probably not. This is probably the best comparison with a 7770 vs PS4 in Battlefield 4. From what the article said, the PS4 doesn't do 60 fps in 900P. It was described more like 40-50FPS.

7770-vs-ps4-chart.png
 
Its hard to build a gaming PC that's comparable to a PS4 or Xbone for the same price.

But its easy to build a PC that's BETTER than any console for not much more. Specially if you factor subscriptions and game prices.

Heck even has better backward compatibility than the PS4 :D:D
 
You guys keep arguing over price when this discussion comes up. It has nothing to do with that.

Keyboard, mouse, desk chair.... IT SUCKS for trying to do something like playing a game. People just want to relax on their couch and play some games. They don't give a fuck how much better or l33t you are with your point and click mouse.

Only way id get into console gaming is if they legit allowed me to ise keyboard/mouse for the fps shooters. Until then and for many other reasons there is no sense in ditching my pcs. And my guest gaming pc only cost me 400-500$ and could match any console for gaming power plus all the extra capabilities...
Click to expand...

So you want to cheat to get a leg up on the competition. You are just mad because the 12 year olds pwn you when you try to use a controller. Controllers don't suck, they are just different and you have to learn how to use them.

I don't even really care that an Xbone can do a lot of the same things a PC can. Play movies, browse the internet, Skype, DLNA, whatever. What it comes down to, at least for me, is this: When I play Battlefield 4 on a PC, I never hear 11 year olds whining "You stowle mai hewicoptol." I never hear 22 year old thugs trying to rap over the mic. Yes, idiots exist in BF4 PC, no doubt, as do children. But it's not nearly on the same level as consoles. Because there's that price barrier and there's that technological barrier. Not saying building a PC is hard, but parents aren't building Jimmy Numbnuts a PC for his 12th birthday. So that's why I do it. That's why I deal with shitty Mantle beta drivers, updates, AV, hardware upgrades, Newegg e-blast emails, benchmark articles, temp monitoring, all that stuff. Because it's a fun hobby, and it keeps me out of the multiplayer console slums.

Seriously, go watch someone play multiplayer Ghosts in PS4 and just listen... to... the awfulness. My god.
Click to expand...

This is the most overblown shit on this thread. There is not a problem with 12 year olds screaming into the mic, and when you do run into one there is mute, switch squads, private party, etc.

Combine these facts with the hassle of trying to rig up a gaming PC to a tv for use with a controller, or use some crappy lap tray setup for KB/M and it just gets even more shitty.

People don't care about dedicated servers or that you can count the hairs on Gordon Freemans ball sack. Also, to the people who call console users "morons" or "stupid", you might what to think about the fact that your doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc probably plays games on consoles if they play at all. Yeah, real stupid people get into those professions.

People have jobs, kids, or whatever and they just want to play some games. The consoles have the best setup for doing that.

We [H] members are niche, and unfortunantly for some reason the guys with the higher end equipment are the CHEAPEST when it comes to buying games. Which is why this market gets ignored a lot of the time by developers.
 
XvMMvX said:
So you want to cheat to get a leg up on the competition. You are just mad because the 12 year olds pwn you when you try to use a controller. Controllers don't suck, they are just different and you have to learn how to use them.
Click to expand...

Well in his defense you are equating mouse+keyboard as "getting a leg up on the competition", so naturally you already know that controllers suck by comparison. I myself think controllers are much better used for traditional console games - sidescrollers, old school rpgs, that kind of thing. I can't stand them when playing an FPS though.
 
Honestly, I am not sure which is worse, the PC elites or the console snobs. Thankfully, I am finally mature enough to use what I like and spend MY money on what I want. That is, a gaming/ HTPC computer with an R9 290/ FX 8350. Also, I have an Xbox one and a 50 inch Sony LCD HDTV and everything from the computer and Xbox one looks great on it.

But, continue on well your stuff collects dust. After all, how can you guys be playing on them when you are here spouting your superiority?
 
Howbout this concept instead:

Do you have a computer at home? Yes? Add a video card for $200, the end.

If you don't, then I guess you're gonna spend about the same either way but choose between convenience (console) and flexibility/longterm savings (PC). That's a little bit of a tossup.
 
I'm kinda kicking around the idea of buying a PS4 actually. I just want to play games with my girlfriend on the couch. Don't want or need online capability, if I want to play other people I have a PC. And the PS4 is actually in stock on Amazon for MSRP now.
 
Aluisious said:
I'm kinda kicking around the idea of buying a PS4 actually. I just want to play games with my girlfriend on the couch. Don't want or need online capability, if I want to play other people I have a PC. And the PS4 is actually in stock on Amazon for MSRP now.
Click to expand...

...and then I looked at the games and...naw.

I don't know what those guys are thinking, release a next gen console with just a few games over even fewer genres...?
 
Comparing the cost of a gaming PC to the cost of a $500 console is a falsehood.

Most people are going to need a computer anyway, for work, internet etc.

Really the cost we should be considering is the difference in cost between a basic Email/Web/Office PC and a gaming PC.

If you look at it from this perspective, you are looking at the difference in price moving to a slightly higher end CPU, as well as the cost of a video card, and possibly a little more RAM.

If you are economical, you can do that for less than $500.
 
ManofGod said:
Honestly, I am not sure which is worse, the PC elites or the console snobs. Thankfully, I am finally mature enough to use what I like and spend MY money on what I want. That is, a gaming/ HTPC computer with an R9 290/ FX 8350. Also, I have an Xbox one and a 50 inch Sony LCD HDTV and everything from the computer and Xbox one looks great on it.

But, continue on well your stuff collects dust. After all, how can you guys be playing on them when you are here spouting your superiority?
Click to expand...

I get the pros/cons of each and find they both have their place (I like my PC and my Nintendo). I think the cost comparison discussion is interesting because it has changed so much over the last 2-ish decades. When the SNES was released it cost about $200 (in 1991 dollars). The cheapest PC at the time would be around $1300, but would not reach the SNES capability. A $2500-3000 PC would. So you had to spend about 10 times as much. Today, even at console launch, that number is at most 1.5x and falls rapidly.
 
Look at it this way.
Add the total cost of a Xbone, PS4 and WiiU.
Take that number and build a gaming PC ($1,200).
That isn't too hard is it?
Add in backwards compatibility, the ability to emulate older consoles, options to stream to a handheld like SHIELD or to your TV with an Ouya and Kainey, even connecting your rig directly to a TV and using a PlayStation or Xbox controller with it and the PC keeps looking better and better.
To me, a PC just makes more sense.
Its more of an adult crowd, most of my online games don't carry any monthly fees, and any visiting nephews and nieces would rather play DubWars or a classic console game on the Ouya then get withing 100' of my PC.
I get most of the same games as everyone else and with games like the Elder Scrolls series I get a much more robust experience than the console people do because of the modding community.
You're never going to get games like Spacebase DF-9 (Double Fine rocks!) on a console, and you're not going to get the plethora of digital sales and bundles you do on PC.
Great thing about bundles, you wind up finding a game enjoyable you probably would have never looked at twice on a console.
But its all preference.
I've got so many old consoles boxed up because I lack the room to set them up, being able to run those games on my PC with a controller is such a plus for me.
I agree, its easier to just drop a disk and play like with a console, but for me building a PC is more fun than playing a game, I don't know, I'm just a little odd like that, just like working on my truck is more fun. I was a LEGO kid, building things is more fun for me.
But hey, to each his or her own.
I love playing a console time to time with a cousin or friend. Some of my fondest memories involve Contra or TecmoBowl with my cousins and siblings.
I grew up in the time a where you played with your friends on a console and online with a PC, and I guess I'm still in that mindset, or at least lean towards it.
 
I had all three consoles last gen but this gen is a turd festival. So much of the product cost goes into crap. I want to play GAMES.

Of course you can't build a gaming pc for the same price as a console. They sell them at a loss and take advantage of economies of scale! PCs are objectively better and are worth the premium. Clearly graphics matter or all these 1080p vs 720p arguments wouldn't have happened. 1080p. How cute.
 
Sate said:
This is a side note really, but there is very little reason to own an optical drive. I have one in my PC, which is 1.5 years old. I have never used it. Not once. My Asus Zenbook has no optical drive. It's never mattered.
Click to expand...

First off people on here bitched about digital downloads for consoles saying how it is bullshit that Microsoft would even consider selling a console with and without an optical drive because not everyone can download games. So if we are going to throw a fit that all consoles MUST have the drive then so must a replacement PC option. Also we are talking about the perfect replacement for consoles. I watch blu-Ray movies on my tv through my console, others use that feature, that is what people originally bought the ps3 for to start with. So that needs to be part of the pricing is you are going to say how much a PC cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top