Console gaming really is a race to the bottom! Death to Consoles!

[DaveSimmons]

smackbaby's sig, newegg prices:

i7-860 = $589.99
Radeon 5850 = $299.99
P7P55 LX = $119.99
Antec 1200 w/ internal 3x120 TFC = $159.99
. . . plus PSU, HDD, RAM, and Windows

But this flamewar is silly. Get a job and enjoy both consoles and a gaming PC.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

smackbaby's sig, newegg prices:

i7-860 = $589.99
Radeon 5850 = $299.99
P7P55 LX = $119.99
Antec 1200 w/ internal 3x120 TFC = $159.99
. . . plus PSU, HDD, RAM, and Windows

But...but...but!...apparently a 46" monitor comes for free when you build a gaming PC like that!

Since he is apparently including the cost of a TV in the total cost for consoles...considering that PCs need a monitor to be used as well...

 

[mindcycle]

You are missing the point, and arguing with me for the sake of arguing. It is more expensive to maintain a PC gaming machine than a console. Period. There is absolutely no way around that, there is no arguing that, and if you do, you are just trolling.

Hell, I don't have a problem with PC gaming. I'm just pointing out a simple, undeniable fact.

Here's the original post I replied to.

Here's the kicker...while those PC gamers are spending $1000 or so every other year to upgrade their machines to be able to push the state of the art, console gamers pay somewhere between $300-$600 every, oh, 4-8 years on a new console.

and my reply..

just pointing out that you don't need a state of the art machine to run most PC games nowadays.

My reply was simply that you don't need a state of the art machine to even push the limits anymore. Point given that I can play "most" games at higher resolutions and with more bells and whistles (compared to a console) on my older machine. I'm not arguing that PC's don't cost more to maintain.. They typically do, I agree. Not sure how that would be considered trolling.

Look at it another way, you state that PC gamers are spending $1000 or so every other year to upgrade their machine. Well, that's more than i've paid for my entire gaming rig upgrades and all, and IMO it can still easily push state of the art.

So who's actually arguing for the sake or arguing here..

 

[smackababy]

You wouldn't play on a 46" monitor if you sat at a desk. Most pc gamers play on smaller, yet closer, LCDs. Monitors cost significantly less than large TVs.

And as far as a TV doing more than playing console games, a computer does more as well.

My arguement was that you can purchase a $200 Xbox cheaper than a gaming PC, but in order to get that true experience, you need to be playing it on a large TV at HD resolution.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

You wouldn't play on a 46" monitor if you sat at a desk. Most pc gamers play on smaller, yet closer, LCDs. Monitors cost significantly less than large TVs.

And as far as a TV doing more than playing console games, a computer does more as well.

My arguement was that you can purchase a $200 Xbox cheaper than a gaming PC, but in order to get that true experience, you need to be playing it on a large TV at HD resolution.

lol wut? And a PC game wouldn't look better on a larger screen? Especially considering PC games have significantly higher resolutions?

And you just listed a negative against PC gaming...generally being confined to a desk instead of relaxing on the couch or a recliner. And if you do that, guess what? Hey, you can use that 46" HDTV as a computer monitor! Hence, including the cost of a "nice HDTV" as part of the total console cost is ridiculous.

I can buy an XBOX 360, a PS3 and a ~32 inch 1080p HDTV for $1000 and it will play games just fine while looking pretty decent at the same time. I could build an okay gaming PC for $1000 with a cheap 22" monitor that will be able to play most (but not all) games at medium settings that are barely any better than the settings a 360/PS3 runs at. If you want to run newer games at better than console settings, you will need to upgrade the video card.

Your argument is poor and does not stand up to scrutiny. PC gaming is a horrible value if you are looking at bang for the buck. PC gaming is no longer "superior" to console gaming. Sorry.

 

[jman19]

You wouldn't play on a 46" monitor if you sat at a desk. Most pc gamers play on smaller, yet closer, LCDs. Monitors cost significantly less than large TVs.

And as far as a TV doing more than playing console games, a computer does more as well.

My arguement was that you can purchase a $200 Xbox cheaper than a gaming PC, but in order to get that true experience, you need to be playing it on a large TV at HD resolution.

Um, a lot of people already have 40+'' TVs to, you know, watch television programming and movies... LOL @ your argument.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Um, a lot of people already have 40+'' TVs to, you know, watch television programming and movies... LOL @ your argument.

That was already mentioned many times before, and he conveniently ignored addressing that point.

 

[smackababy]

That was already mentioned many times before, and he conveniently ignored addressing that point.

That doesn't change the fact that some form of TV is required to play a console game. That is an added cost to the system.

And no, not everyone has a 40"+ TV. I know of a lot of people who purchased TVs when they got their consoles to get the "full" experience. My TV sits unused unless I am streaming a movie to it or playing a console.

Therefore, PC gaming's was not substantially higher than my console gaming's. Yet, my PC gaming is of a higher quality (metric based quality, not substance based) than my Xbox.

Does this mean console gaming is bad? No, of course not. I have a ton of fun playing Xbox Live with my friends and even my fiance. I also, however, have a ton of fun playing PC games with my friends as well.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

That doesn't change the fact that some form of TV is required to play a console game. That is an added cost to the system.

Some form of monitor is required to play a PC game. That is an added cost to the system.

Good grief...is this really that hard? :\

Or are you saying most people don't have TVs?

And no, not everyone has a 40"+ TV. I know of a lot of people who purchased TVs when they got their consoles to get the "full" experience. My TV sits unused unless I am streaming a movie to it or playing a console.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You know some people who bought a nice TV specifically to play games in HD. Of course, your personal experiences must be reality for everyone, amirite?

herefore, PC gaming's was not substantially higher than my console gaming's. Yet, my PC gaming is of a higher quality (metric based quality, not substance based) than my Xbox.

More opinion. My console gaming is of a higher quality than my PC. And I have a gaming PC that can run all (Crysis excluded) games at medium/high settings. There is more to quality than just "LOL TEH GRAFIX!"

Stating opinions like they are fact is fail.

 

[magomago]

lol wut? And a PC game wouldn't look better on a larger screen? Especially considering PC games have significantly higher resolutions?

And you just listed a negative against PC gaming...generally being confined to a desk instead of relaxing on the couch or a recliner. And if you do that, guess what? Hey, you can use that 46" HDTV as a computer monitor! Hence, including the cost of a "nice HDTV" as part of the total console cost is ridiculous.

I can buy an XBOX 360, a PS3 and a ~32 inch 1080p HDTV for $1000 and it will play games just fine while looking pretty decent at the same time. I could build an okay gaming PC for $1000 with a cheap 22" monitor that will be able to play most (but not all) games at medium settings that are barely any better than the settings a 360/PS3 runs at. If you want to run newer games at better than console settings, you will need to upgrade the video card.

Your argument is poor and does not stand up to scrutiny. PC gaming is a horrible value if you are looking at bang for the buck. PC gaming is no longer "superior" to console gaming. Sorry.

Dude that is a total exaggeration. 1000 dollars these days will get you a kick ass PC that can run most games on high settings; maybe not fully maxed 100% (you'd need crazy SLI setups to do that), but it will clearly look way better than any console. Period.
Maybe many years ago 1k would get you a 'decent' gaming machine capable of doing medium settings (actually that has to be a really long time ago, because even when I started college in 2004, 1k could get you a decent rig to play most games on high)...but not today. The curve to upgrade the PC while still keeping medium-high to high settings has drastically slowed down. My friends 4800+ with a 9800GT still lets him run bioshock 2 with most details maxed (I checked last night as I watched him play because I was suprised it looked so good on his rig). I could still play most games on my 4400+ with a 7900gs with atleast medium settings no problems (up till about maybe 1 year ago).
That said, I don't play PC games anymore and only really play on consoles now. I always enjoyed playing on both. For what I do, my system is totally capable and I haven't had a need to update or upgrade at all, which is why I don't. I think the 360 and Ps3's graphics are PERFECTLY acceptable for me, and I don't think it looks bad at all.

 

[Igniseus]

I cant believe you guys have missed such a critical point.

PC Games *NEW* cost 25 pound usually, whereas PS3/360 games *NEW* cost 40 usually. 15 pounds is a huge difference!

Now lets do some simple maths.....if you buy just 10 games a year, thats 150 pounds! A new graphics card every year! Now if your a serious gamer....well lets just say you could easily keep your PC current with those savings.

Oh and regarding the 4 year old PC's cant play modern games like MW2. Pure crap. I have 2 PC's, 1 is about 4-5 years old, never upgraded since, and didn't cost much initially either. Yet the ONLY game it cant play decently is Crysis. And yes, multi-platform games do look better on this PC than on consoles.

As for the keyboard and mouse on your lap thing, controllers have been around years on the PC.

And i'm not even a PC "fanboi", I actually prefer PS3 gaming atm.

 

[vi edit]

Yeh but I can pay $15USD a month and rent games that I would normally pay $60USD for.

Plus the 2nd hand console market is much more developed than the PC one. Between CD keys, DRM and other antipiracy options trying to resell a PC game can be very challengening if not impossible without having a crippled game.

I'm positive that the huge rental and 2nd market has a significant impact on the retail price of console games.

 

[jman19]

That was already mentioned many times before, and he conveniently ignored addressing that point.

Yeah I know, I just wanted to beat him over the head with it

 

[jman19]

That doesn't change the fact that some form of TV is required to play a console game. That is an added cost to the system.

And no, not everyone has a 40"+ TV. I know of a lot of people who purchased TVs when they got their consoles to get the "full" experience. My TV sits unused unless I am streaming a movie to it or playing a console.

Therefore, PC gaming's was not substantially higher than my console gaming's. Yet, my PC gaming is of a higher quality (metric based quality, not substance based) than my Xbox.

Does this mean console gaming is bad? No, of course not. I have a ton of fun playing Xbox Live with my friends and even my fiance. I also, however, have a ton of fun playing PC games with my friends as well.

Just about everyone ALREADY HAS A TV - adding it to the "cost" of a console is moronic.

 

[BenSkywalker]

That doesn't change the fact that some form of TV is required to play a console game.

You shop at Joe's Discount Computing? Your monitor not have HDMI? No, consoles do not require a television. So while you have to add the cost of a monitor to you PC, no display is required for the consoles since you can just use your monitor. Personally I don't use my PC's display to play games on, I use me movie display for that purpose, but if you game on a PC, you shouldn't need to spend anything for a display for a console.

PC Games *NEW* cost 25 pound usually, whereas PS3/360 games *NEW* cost 40 usually. 15 pounds is a huge difference!

How's the selection of used PC games at your local game shop? If you are a fairly profoundly ignorant consumer in the US I suppose it is possible to spend more on a per game basis for the console then the PC, but you really have to be either trying to or an idiot

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Growing up on Atari and NES I cannot for the life of me get how anyone thinks any modern graphics are bad. Even the ones that are washed out, too dark, slightly pixelated, etc look very good for the most part. Modern graphics are how you separate the geeks from the players...

 

[Pia]

OP is pretty late on this. Basically anything on consoles runs at 720p max, whereas in the case of COD, Halo3 etc it's even lower.

But given the limited horsepower on the systems, this is the reasonable thing to do. The Matrix looks hell of a lot better at 480p and 30 frames per second off DVD than Call of Duty looks at 1080p 60fps rendered by the most wonderful gaming system ever devised. What's really missing from computer graphics is detail. Resolution, contrast and other things are nice but no substitute for detail.

Granted, it is really ridiculous behavior from the console companies to tout "1080p" when they can't actually produce any. If they want to keep up the "1080p" bullshit, then everyone should just have stuck with the last gen - after all, my Playstation2 outputs "1080i" in Gran Turismo 4.

 

[Pia]

Just about everyone ALREADY HAS A TV - adding it to the "cost" of a console is moronic.

I'd say it's an even more moronic assumption that no one has a computer at home (which is implied in the claims that the initial cost of gaming on PC is the price of a dedicated box).

 

[jman19]

I'd say it's an even more moronic assumption that no one has a computer at home (which is implied in the claims that the initial cost of gaming on PC is the price of a dedicated box).

Smackbaby asserted that the cost of a TV, which is needed, is more than the cost of a computer. I'm arguing against the logic he is using - I never said a thing about the cost of a basic internet surfing box vs. a gaming machine, so take your beef elsewhere.

 

[erwos]

When did it become acceptable for PC fanatics to troll the console forum? Where the hell are the mods, and why aren't they handing out some smack-downs?

 

[Sahakiel]

tldr;

The biggest problem with consoles is the hardware is static. The performance specs don't change until the next generation 8ish years down the line. To make up for it, the hardware when released is top of the line. That's why initial production is sold at a loss and only sold at profit late in life. (Wii is technically last generation). However, Moore's Law being what it is, console performance tends to become anemic halfway through its life cycle compared to other silicon with more transistors to play with. Video resolution is a part of that since consoles are designed to be played on television sets. We don't have to go into why television specs don't change.

The biggest asset to console games is also the fact the hardware is static. Every player has the exact same hardware (plus or minus a die shrink). Upgradable firmware is treading into PC territory, but so far, updates haven't changed game code significantly. If you've ever had to write code for a large portion of the PC market, you know how much easier it is to not account for different hardware and let you really tweak to a specific architecture.
Given shorter dev cycles, more complex designs, cost cutting, and fundamentally different architecture, from this generation out, consoles might actually start to lose that traditionally static quality.

That being said, I don't see the hardware as the reason for dumbing console games. I see the market full of gamers who simply want to turn off what's left of their brains. The biggest legacy Ford left us isn't mass production. It's the fact that selling cheap to the masses brings bigger profits than selling quality to the few.

Also, the internet helped develop a generation with shorter attention spans. Instead of reading several passages and taking notes, we now skim and extract the important parts or run a search. Granted, we can now find pertinent information faster, but it certainly hasn't helped develop the patience or the interest required for traditional games with long play times and optional side quests or activities. Instead of enjoying a few quality titles, we now speed through several mediocre games and pay more for the privilege.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

But...but...but!...apparently a 46" monitor comes for free when you build a gaming PC like that!

Cool, sign me up!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

My arguement was that you can purchase a $200 Xbox cheaper than a gaming PC, but in order to get that true experience, you need to be playing it on a large TV at HD resolution.

A modern PC would also best be viewed on a 46" 1080P TV to get the "true experience." Are you going to include that in the cost of a PC?

Most people have TVs already and when they go out and buy the Xbox or PS3, they don't typically go out and buy a new TV just because they got a new console. I know plenty of people who played their consoles on SD TVs when they got them (me included). Most people buy big TVs because they want big TVs and want to watch shows, movies, Blu Rays, etc. on the new TVs. Hooking a PC, console, etc. to them is just icing on the cake. I bought my first plasma for my home theater and the fact that I could hook my Xbox up to it for better gaming was just a side benefit.

It is an absurd proposition to say that console gaming is more expensive than PC gaming because "you have to include the cost of an HD TV." If you're going to make that silly argument, you might as well also include a comfy leather recliner or couch in the cost, since that is also "necessary" to "get the full experience" while playing your console in front of a big TV.

On the other side of the fence, it is also absurd to claim that PC gamers have to spend $1000 every year to play new games, as some people here have claimed. I bought the main system in my sig in early 2008. I have not performed a single hardware upgrade to it since 2008, yet it can play every game I've thrown at it with high settings in 1600 X 1200.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

"race to the bottom" describes this thread perfectly. Every response could be a C&P from ones made years ago, nothing has changed.

Now, find something worthy to become emotionally vested in would ya.

 

[warcrow]

tldr;

The biggest problem with consoles is the hardware is static. The performance specs don't change until the next generation 8ish years down the line. To make up for it, the hardware when released is top of the line. That's why initial production is sold at a loss and only sold at profit late in life. (Wii is technically last generation). However, Moore's Law being what it is, console performance tends to become anemic halfway through its life cycle compared to other silicon with more transistors to play with. Video resolution is a part of that since consoles are designed to be played on television sets. We don't have to go into why television specs don't change.

The biggest asset to console games is also the fact the hardware is static. Every player has the exact same hardware (plus or minus a die shrink). Upgradable firmware is treading into PC territory, but so far, updates haven't changed game code significantly. If you've ever had to write code for a large portion of the PC market, you know how much easier it is to not account for different hardware and let you really tweak to a specific architecture.
Given shorter dev cycles, more complex designs, cost cutting, and fundamentally different architecture, from this generation out, consoles might actually start to lose that traditionally static quality.

That being said, I don't see the hardware as the reason for dumbing console games. I see the market full of gamers who simply want to turn off what's left of their brains. The biggest legacy Ford left us isn't mass production. It's the fact that selling cheap to the masses brings bigger profits than selling quality to the few.

Also, the internet helped develop a generation with shorter attention spans. Instead of reading several passages and taking notes, we now skim and extract the important parts or run a search. Granted, we can now find pertinent information faster, but it certainly hasn't helped develop the patience or the interest required for traditional games with long play times and optional side quests or activities. Instead of enjoying a few quality titles, we now speed through several mediocre games and pay more for the privilege.

That's your version of a TLDR?