How to Buy a Game Console

Wierdo said:
Howbout this concept instead:

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

there are so many problems with the argument that you can just add a video card to an existing computer that someone has. There are a very small amount of situations where you could just drop a 7850/7870 into someone's Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc.
 
chameleoneel said:
there are so many problems with the argument that you can just add a video card to an existing computer that someone has. There are a very small amount of situations where you could just drop a 7850/7870 into someone's Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc.
Click to expand...

Yes there's allot of junk stuff out there. This works mainly if the person is tech savvy to begin with, at least enough to know better than to get a Dell.

But the main point is most people need a home PC to do real work, so the difference generally becomes a matter of "do I wanna budget a video card for gaming" or not.
 
chameleoneel said:
there are so many problems with the argument that you can just add a video card to an existing computer that someone has. There are a very small amount of situations where you could just drop a 7850/7870 into someone's Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc.
Click to expand...
The only problem I can see is if the PC doesn't have a PCI-E slot for a graphics card. Otherwise, then it's plug and play.

Exavior said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. PCs are more flexible then consoles, and that's why you don't need a DVD drive. The reason a drive is needed on a console is because you don't have the options that PC has to keep game prices low. If Microsoft and Sony say $60, then you pay. You have no choice. On PC, if Steam wants $60 it doesn't mean that's my only choice. For example, Gamers Gate has a lot of games lower in price then Steam sometimes. I can also go to Amazon or whatever I wish to get my games.

Also, the PC isn't this draconian locked down mess like the PS4 or Xbone. You can't even upgrade the hard drive in your Xbone. But in a PC you can do whatever you want. Got 2 Terabytes of movies on your hard drive? Why care for a disc drive then?

If Blu-Ray is a must then buy it. It's not required for gaming. Is a Webcam a must? Then buy it, but it's not required for gaming.
 
Ashbringer said:
The only problem I can see is if the PC doesn't have a PCI-E slot for a graphics card. Otherwise, then it's plug and play.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but most people - if they buy a computer at all (and not a phone or tablet) - buy laptops these days.

Even if they are among the minority of people who actually buy a desktop, it is often some shrunk down custom form factor, or comes with a wimpy custom form factor (not upgradeable) power supply, that is unable to support a video cad addon.

Not to mention that most people are scared shitless of opening their computers.

It may take a little planning, but if it coincides with getting a new computer, this economic rationale can work.

A lot of people who buy consoles though - also do so to play with all their friends online, who also have consoles...
 
Ashbringer said:
No it's not about bandwidth. If that were the case we'd be using GDDR5 for desktop PCs instead of DDR3/4.
Click to expand...
Multitasking is all about bandwidth. and bandwidth isn't just the straight max throughput numbers.
As I tried to express earlier, the PS4 also does away with traditional memory management seen in current Dekstop PCs. Part of the reason lower latency is good for system ram in current PCs, is due to how much the ram has to be refreshed, redundantly filleds, and redundantly copied back and forth. The PS4's design eliminates a lot of the wait states and redundancies typically inherent to sharing data between the GPU and CPU. This means that bandwidth at any given time, is likely better than it would have been with a split memory design.

Even if it isn't actually better off for the CPU than it would have been with a split design; I'm not saying the PS4 is going to out do a PC in CPU performance or anything. I'm saying that the system is designed to maximize the GPU and be good enough for the CPU. Most of the possible disadvantages there may be with GDDR5 as CPU ram, are mitigated and the possible benefits are maximized.


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.
Click to expand...
I pretty much asked you to tell me what other PS4 games don't do 1080p. Because I don't know of any and couldn't find any after a couple of google/bing searches.

I know that BF4 is crap. I have tested the hell out of it with my PC and followed the Blu-ray.com PS4 thread very closely. On PC, it does seem to run relatively well, considering all of the problems the game has.

2. The settings in BF4 PS4 are set to high, when I've had people describe it as low or medium.
Click to expand...
I'm going off published comparisons. The PS4 ACTUALLY seems to be an optimized mix of ultra textures, Ultra lighting, and high/med other settings. It's actually not unlike the settings I use for my 7870.

3. They're using a DirectX translation tool for the PS4?
Click to expand...
Sony has officially stated they have API translation tools for devs to use early on, to get their games up and running more quickly.


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.
Click to expand...
Well sure. I said a few posts ago that in a year or two, you will be able to buy 7850/7870 level graphics, for $100. It's irrelevant to the fact that right now, you cannot put together a PC from scratch, that is equivalent to/slightly better than a PS4 in gaming, for $400.



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
[/QUOTE]
Those results are intriguing, but it also uses a $300 CPU. which would put the cost of the CPU and 7770 alone, right at the cost of a PS4.

Noting CPU performance is one of the reasons I mentioned that Tomb Raider might be a better overall gauge right now, of theoretically PS4 performance. Because it seems to be more optimized than the multiplatform games from launch.

The idea being that theoretically, the PS4's API should allow some Mantle like relief on the CPU. If coded for properly. It also has 8 threads and BF4 loves threads.

and I will repeat, it is intriguing to see a report saying that a 7770 can do just under 60fps average at 900p "high" settings in one of BF4's more taxing maps. Even with an i7. This contradicts most reviews I'm seen. I wish they would have said how long the test runs were.
My 7870 with a Phenom II x6 and mixed settings, to include no ambient occlusion; managed 58fps average, over a 6 minute test.
Mantle increased it to 85fps average. Same server, same map, same player count.

settings:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d72/chameleoneel/ScreenshotWin32-0002.png

full info:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040594668&postcount=29
 
Exavior said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for "people" nor they for me. I do not care what anyone else has said. If you would like to say that for <1% of people the PC costs more, fine. But the statement "a gaming PC generally needs an optical drive" is just false. Movie watching is irrelevant to a discussion about gaming.
 
Ashbringer said:
The only problem I can see is if the PC doesn't have a PCI-E slot for a graphics card. Otherwise, then it's plug and play.


No it doesn't. PCs are more flexible then consoles, and that's why you don't need a DVD drive. The reason a drive is needed on a console is because you don't have the options that PC has to keep game prices low. If Microsoft and Sony say $60, then you pay. You have no choice. On PC, if Steam wants $60 it doesn't mean that's my only choice. For example, Gamers Gate has a lot of games lower in price then Steam sometimes. I can also go to Amazon or whatever I wish to get my games.

Also, the PC isn't this draconian locked down mess like the PS4 or Xbone. You can't even upgrade the hard drive in your Xbone. But in a PC you can do whatever you want. Got 2 Terabytes of movies on your hard drive? Why care for a disc drive then?

If Blu-Ray is a must then buy it. It's not required for gaming. Is a Webcam a must? Then buy it, but it's not required for gaming.
Click to expand...

Sate said:
I don't speak for "people" nor they for me. I do not care what anyone else has said. If you would like to say that for <1% of people the PC costs more, fine. But the statement "a gaming PC generally needs an optical drive" is just false. Movie watching is irrelevant to a discussion about gaming.
Click to expand...

How do the two of you expect people to get their games? People can't download games from Steam, they don't have the bandwidth to allow this. 99% of the USA has low data caps and can't use them to download games... The two of you have proven exactly what everyone else seems to claim is not the case when ever it was brought up that there could be a Xbox without a optical drive and that is that people CAN and DO get games digital for both pc and consoles. Because ever time that has came up the people that post in there bitch and cry about how people can't download digital games and that people can't do it with Steam either and hate digital downloads on steam.

It is a viable option for both consoles and pcs. You can't replace the HD in a Xbox One or use a external drive yet. As for price. As people have said before console games go on sale also, both disc and digital copies. I have purchased digital copies of games on the xbox for 75% off during sales just like I do on steam. Really sucked when Xbox live had a sale the week before one of the major Steam sales. Both systems got about 5-7 new games on them.

All that said, going back to what I stated in what you both replied to. You are over looking a feature of the console which is Blu-ray playback. Which yes isn't needed for GAMING, but the point is that a console isn't just for gaming, it is for living room entertainment. If you are saying that nobody in the world should ever purchase a console again but instead every single person that bought one should buy a pc and connect it to their tv and use that for gaming instead then it needs to include all that functionality. And it would be more than 1% when looking at every single person that owns a console. People do still buy or rent movies on disc, so they need some way to play them. Do you personally need one, maybe not. But if you are going to argue the cost of a device for the average person and what they need and what they would spend to replace a console then you need to make sure to actually be looking at it from what they need and have then.
 
naw man I don't think bringing up the other things consoles can do is a worthwhile battle. PCs can do more than consoles. Period.

Yes, you get blu-ray in the price of the PS4. But in the price of any PC, you get all sorts of functionality.

The core argument here is; Right now you cannot put together a PC from scratch for gaming, for $400, that performs as good or slightly better than a PS4.
 
Exavior said:
How do the two of you expect people to get their games? People can't download games from Steam, they don't have the bandwidth to allow this. 99% of the USA has low data caps and can't use them to download games... The two of you have proven exactly what everyone else seems to claim is not the case when ever it was brought up that there could be a Xbox without a optical drive and that is that people CAN and DO get games digital for both pc and consoles. Because ever time that has came up the people that post in there bitch and cry about how people can't download digital games and that people can't do it with Steam either and hate digital downloads on steam.

It is a viable option for both consoles and pcs. You can't replace the HD in a Xbox One or use a external drive yet. As for price. As people have said before console games go on sale also, both disc and digital copies. I have purchased digital copies of games on the xbox for 75% off during sales just like I do on steam. Really sucked when Xbox live had a sale the week before one of the major Steam sales. Both systems got about 5-7 new games on them.

All that said, going back to what I stated in what you both replied to. You are over looking a feature of the console which is Blu-ray playback. Which yes isn't needed for GAMING, but the point is that a console isn't just for gaming, it is for living room entertainment. If you are saying that nobody in the world should ever purchase a console again but instead every single person that bought one should buy a pc and connect it to their tv and use that for gaming instead then it needs to include all that functionality. And it would be more than 1% when looking at every single person that owns a console. People do still buy or rent movies on disc, so they need some way to play them. Do you personally need one, maybe not. But if you are going to argue the cost of a device for the average person and what they need and what they would spend to replace a console then you need to make sure to actually be looking at it from what they need and have then.
Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about consoles not having an optical drive. Since they generally are only cost effective by having one design and all users have the same hardware, then it makes sense that there has to be a drive. I also started my aside with THIS IS A BIT OF A SIDE POINT. I said that because I did not mean for it to be any major argument for or against PCs versus Consoles. OK?

A nicety of PCs is that they don't need identical configurations. Can't get by without an optical drive? Buy one. Everyone else? Don't. Since I am one of 72% of households with broadband, I don't. The average person is among that majority (many of the rest are too poor to afford it, but the very poor should also not be considering a $500 game machine). If the console comparison vs PC is "people who want to game and watch blu-ray" then that has one answer. If the comparison is "people who just want a game machine for games" then that has a different answer, but those comparisons must be made separately and neither is the sole "correct" consideration. I happen not to give a shit about the former comparison and when I say gaming, I mean gaming, period.
 
Exavior said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with digital games.
I have no problem with MS selling digital games.
I have a problem with a console requiring an online connection.
I have a problem with digital being forced on you as an only option. I should be allowed to go to a retail store and buy a game should I chose. God knows internet here goes out all the time and I don't want to have to wait for a tech to show up in a week to play a game I just spent $60 on. I don't buy ALL my PC games on Steam.
If I want to swap a game with a cousin for a week, or let them borrow it, I should have that right.
I should be allowed to rent a game before I buy it at full retail and make sure if I'm plopping down over $50 the game is worth it.
 
Thing is (and you would be surprised at how many people seem to lack this knowledge) is that these companies like Sony and Microsoft take a HUGE hit for the consoles themselves and are LOSING money on them bigtime, not profiting....so it would be impossible to build a PC for around the same price with same performance.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040627394 said:
I mostly agree, but most people - if they buy a computer at all (and not a phone or tablet) - buy laptops these days.
Click to expand...
At that point then it's best to buy a complete unit from a site like IBuyPower, or maybe have a friend that can build one for you. The rational that avoiding a desktop PC for portable units needs to change. There's no replacement for a desktop computer. Not the laptop, and certainly not the tablets/smart phone.

Alternatively, buy SteamBox. It's really a PC.
Even if they are among the minority of people who actually buy a desktop, it is often some shrunk down custom form factor, or comes with a wimpy custom form factor (not upgradeable) power supply, that is unable to support a video cad addon.
Click to expand...
There's this misnomer that a gaming PC must have a super powerful power supply. I have a AMD 8350 with a HD 6850 with water cooling, three hard drives, Blu-Ray drive, and lots of fans. Running Crysis 3 it pulls ~350W of power. The Thermaltake 600w is mostly future proofing my setup. A quality power supply matters more then one that can handle large amounts of power. So a 400W power supply that's at least 80% efficient, should do fine. I'm not sure what Dell/HP/etc puts in their PCs but I'd hope it's at least 400w. Otherwise you're certainly not getting your money's worth.

chameleoneel said:
I pretty much asked you to tell me what other PS4 games don't do 1080p. Because I don't know of any and couldn't find any after a couple of google/bing searches.
Click to expand...
Games that run 1080P @60fps aren't many.

Assassin's Creed 4 1080p @ 30fps
EA Sports UFC 1080p @ 30fps
Infamous: Second Son 1080p @ 30fps
Need for Speed Rivals 1080p @ 30fps

I'd imagine that if these games can't do 60fps @ 1080p then the resolution would have to be lowered to 720p.
I know that BF4 is crap. I have tested the hell out of it with my PC and followed the Blu-ray.com PS4 thread very closely. On PC, it does seem to run relatively well, considering all of the problems the game has.
Click to expand...
BF4 seems to be a mess all around, but I doubt that with all the effort AMD is throwing behind BF4 that the PS4 version got shit housed. Especially since PS4 seems to be running the nearest thing to AMD's Mantle.

I'm going off published comparisons. The PS4 ACTUALLY seems to be an optimized mix of ultra textures, Ultra lighting, and high/med other settings. It's actually not unlike the settings I use for my 7870.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with game consoles, is that there's no way to know what settings the game is set to, or even the fps. It's entirely up to your judgment.
Those results are intriguing, but it also uses a $300 CPU. which would put the cost of the CPU and 7770 alone, right at the cost of a PS4.
Click to expand...
I believe that any $100 AMD cpu would outperform what's in the PS4.
and I will repeat, it is intriguing to see a report saying that a 7770 can do just under 60fps average at 900p "high" settings in one of BF4's more taxing maps. Even with an i7. This contradicts most reviews I'm seen. I wish they would have said how long the test runs were.
My 7870 with a Phenom II x6 and mixed settings, to include no ambient occlusion; managed 58fps average, over a 6 minute test.
Mantle increased it to 85fps average. Same server, same map, same player count.
Click to expand...
Most tests done with BF4 almost always use some amount of FXAA, but you don't need FXAA today. If you run at 1080p or higher resolutions, then AA isn't needed. AA was created when 640x480 and 800x600 was common resolutions that PC's used. So instead of seeing these visible jaggies, you used AA to sorta blur the lines. But at 1080p with a monitor with high pixel density, you don't need it.

The 7770 has limited bandwidth, so FXAA would kill it's framerate. Compared to a 7870 which has a lot more bandwidth and could handle the FXAA better. Interestingly, the AMD Radeon R7 250X is a re-branded HD 7770, so we could see new benchmarks and hope that FXAA is tested disabled as well as enabled in BF4.
 
An example of what I'm talking about when it comes to quality settings in consoles. Take a look at this picture of the Xbone vs PS4 BF4. Even though the Xbone version is 720P, the textures look less washed out then the PS4. Not sure why the PS4 textures look washed out.

BF4-XboxOne-vs-PS4_1624x427.jpg


Another one with PS4 vs Xbone vs PC.

2359308-2725824570-G8Ik2.png
 
Ah!!! What a great article.
So that's how its done! To think I was trying to buy a console by shoving cheese in my nose!
 
Ashbringer said:
An example of what I'm talking about when it comes to quality settings in consoles. Take a look at this picture of the Xbone vs PS4 BF4. Even though the Xbone version is 720P, the textures look less washed out then the PS4. Not sure why the PS4 textures look washed out.

BF4-XboxOne-vs-PS4_1624x427.jpg


Another one with PS4 vs Xbone vs PC.

2359308-2725824570-G8Ik2.png
Click to expand...

A. good job picking screenshots presented by a biased website that is all about the Xbone/Kinect
http://123kinect.com/battlefield-4-ps4-version-better-xbox-one/42805/

B. Their article hand picks a handful of very specific textures that appear to be lower quality or overfiltered....

C. but fail to account for the fact that BF4 is HEAVY on FX, motion blur, filters, etc. Here is a shot of that same guy's head, taken by the mostly unbiased digital foundry (although they do occasional misrepresent the PC in some articles):

PC
http://cfa.gamer-network.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/6/9/1/4/BF4_PC_044.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

PS4
http://cfa.gamer-network.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/6/9/1/4/BF4_PS4_044.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

Xbone
http://cfa.gamer-network.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/6/9/1/4/BF4_XO_044.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

those images tell a much different story, than the shots presented by that biased Xbox only site. It appears to me that they deliberately used PS4 pictures that either have motion blur happening, or maybe the LOD didn't have enough time to settle.


D. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-28-battlefield-4-xbox-one-ps4-pc-comparison-gallery

look at digital foundry's screenshot comparisons with over 75 images. You'll see that as a whole, all versions of BF4 look quite good and quite similar. Yeah, not all of their shots are exactly at the same moments. Therefore, some shots for any given version of the game, have extra blurring effects or slightly different lighting.
 
I figure something wasn't right about the PS4 image. But using the images you've shown I've created this to compare. Again, we don't know what settings the PS4 version is using but it isn't equivalent to max on the PC. Looking at the text on the rifle, you can see the PC version is better. Also, the images on the side of the rifle are also sharper on PC. The screws are sharper on the PC version as well.

It's not a perfect comparison because we have no control over the console version, but PS4 is clearly not max settings equivalent to PC.

BF4compare.jpg
 
Ashbringer said:
I figure something wasn't right about the PS4 image. But using the images you've shown I've created this to compare. Again, we don't know what settings the PS4 version is using but it isn't equivalent to max on the PC. Looking at the text on the rifle, you can see the PC version is better. Also, the images on the side of the rifle are also sharper on PC. The screws are sharper on the PC version as well.

It's not a perfect comparison because we have no control over the console version, but PS4 is clearly not max settings equivalent to PC.

BF4compare.jpg
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it was max settings. I said it was an optimized mix. However, I did specify "Ultra" textures. Which I was clearly wrong about. I went on the word of digital foundry's article, which says something to the effect of: "textures seem to be highest quality".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top