Damn, console gamers hate us

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
I never said anything about hardware equivalency. I said performance equivalency for the same price. The cheapest 7850 on newegg is $130. Good luck building the $500 PC I stated with a card that expensive.

I recently did just that for someone simply by reusing their old PSU, MATX case, BD-ROM drive & RAM. (And the other day there was a 7850 for $80 on Ebay (perfect condition) with 7790's going for under $50 on some "quiet" Ebay days). It can be done if you try, especially if you can reuse components or buy 2nd hand.

And as Red Storm just said in post above, there seems to be a persistent false equivalence of PS4 vs total cost of computer - conveniently ignoring the additional $300-$500 the PS4 owner has usually spent on a full-size laptop to do their homework / college dissertation, etc. If you're a teenager who has both a laptop & PS4 in your bedroom, I don't think you can honestly say they've only spent "$500" total on their combined computing + gaming needs. :sneaky: In reality, the "figure you have to beat" varies quite a bit depending on what else they've spent their money on as a PC alternative for applications (laptops, full-size tablets that never leave the house, HTPC, etc), plus whatever existing components can be reused. Many PC's sold in the past couple of years can be upgraded to "gaming capability" with just a GFX card alone.

Edit : And then there's the Newegg reviews : $499 1TB Samsung 840 EVO - "I installed this SSD in my PS4 and it's working fine. Really easy to swap in.", "great over double space my ps4 started with", etc.

$65 Samsung Spinpoint M8 : "PlayStation 4 upgrade", "PS4 Replacement", "Purchased this just for my PS4 since this was perfect for it. Doesn't heat up as much and no lagging. Runs like a champ and actually smoother and faster than stock HD PS4 500gb.", This is an excellent upgrade for the PS4", etc.

So the reality is, many console owners are spending from $65 to $500 on 1TB HDD / SSD upgrades anyway, opening the case with a screwdriver, taking one bit out and putting another bit in - no different to PC users. So that $500 "to beat" target is now $565-1,000. Still excluding the $500 laptop they bought a year before. ;)

You have to be kidding if you think PC developers don't have performance targets in mind throughout the whole development process for common base configurations (minimum/recommended configurations) at common resolutions.
Given some recent chronically bad ports, I honestly believe the only thing some of them have "in their minds" is a wide open space... :D
 
Last edited:

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
So the reality is, many console owners are spending from $65 to $500 on 1TB HDD / SSD upgrades anyway, opening the case with a screwdriver, taking one bit out and putting another bit in - no different to PC users.

No they aren't.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
No they aren't.
No really, many are. Maybe not a majority, but on Newegg alone, 10% of reviews of the Samsung M8 on the first page alone involved just PS4 upgrades. Given how many HDD's get shifted each year, that's quite a lot. There's also a good reason why Amazon are advertising them as : "Samsung M8 1TB 2.5" 9.5mm SATA 6Gps Internal Hard Drive -PS3/PS4 Compatible" - and why 1/3rd of the pre-purchase questions (and 20/30 of the first 30x 5* reviews) were about upgrading Playstation's... (Also not surprising when the "next gen" game install sizes have shot up to 20-50GB per throw).
 
Last edited:

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
No really, many are. Maybe not a majority

Of the 10 million consoles sold, the number who will have done it are so minuscule as to be a statistical irrelevance.

And if you're going to include second hand PC parts to reduce the cost of a PC, you're going to need to need to include the fact that console owners can trade in their older console and games libraries when buying a new system.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
Of the 10 million consoles sold, the number who will have done it are so minuscule as to be a statistical irrelevance.

Not what Amazon sales reviews are showing. See above link. ;)

And if you're going to include second hand PC parts to reduce the cost of a PC, you're going to need to need to include the fact that console owners can trade in their older console and games libraries when buying a new system.
And if you're going to include "game libraries", then you need to include the much lower price of games for PC's overall over the space of 5 years, the innumerable Steam PC sales when other platforms are still near full price, etc. (Or they fact you don't have to sell them because they still work). And on it goes...
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Not what Amazon sales reviews are showing. See above link. ;)

Which doesn't prove anything at all.


And if you're going to include "game libraries", then you need to include the much lower price of games for PC's overall over the space of 5 years, the innumerable Steam PC sales when other platforms are still near full price, etc. (Or they fact you don't have to sell them because they still work). And on it goes...

Well no, because we're talking about the upfront cost now.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
Which doesn't prove anything at all.
Reality check : People have been doing it since the PS3 / XB360. That's why official guide's exist:-
http://support.xbox.com/en-GB/xbox-360/system/add-remove-hard-drive
http://uk.playstation.com/ps3/support/general/detail/linked347570/item347531/Replacing-the-hard-disk-%28other-models%29/

It's not some new "niche" that sprang up last week... And yes, "I bought this item for x" sales reviews do tend to indicate why people are buying an item... :rolleyes:

Well no, because we're talking about the upfront cost now.
Not everyone buys their games full price though, especially if half a dozen good ones come along at once. And even on launch day there's still often a platform price difference. This isn't exactly "breaking news" either... In fact it's the basic economics of how consoles work - they don't sell the hardware below cost price (what MS/Sony receive from each sale is less than what retailers price it up as after their cut) if they can't make it back (and more) on the higher software costs over the lifespan of the console averaged over typical +25 games purchases per 7-8 year generation. Even $10 per game = +$250 premium, and a lot of games have a far bigger gap than that even just a few weeks after launch.
 
Last edited:

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
4,094
123
106
It's really funny how console gamers who strongly oppose piracy know nothing about console piracy... Actually, piracy is going very, very strong on consoles. PS3 is easy as pie to hack, and with the most recent advancements, even the previously unhackable units can be hacked. Xbox 360, is somewhat more "annoying" (not necessarily difficult) to hack.

So really, if Sony will at least be more likely to get money from pirates on console sales, Microsoft is less likely to enjoy the same dubious benefit.

Perhaps its the reason why there are more PS4 units selling? Because people believe it will be hacked sooner or later, but not so sure about XBONE ?! (I kid.. I kid...) I know all that jazz about better graphics and all that.

Either way, those who believe consoles somehow "deter" piracy are being naive. In fact, if consoles were the only option, and PC games were gone(which is a ridiculous thought in itself) consoles would be that much more likely to be hacked because a lot more people would divert their efforts in that direction as opposed to PCs.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,353
1,862
126
Idiot children are idiot children.

I ordered the pre-alpha for carmageddon reincarnation

It sucks in its current state, but it came with carmageddon and carmageddon 2, two of my very favorite games from my teenage years. I have lost copies of both of them back in the windows 95 era and in the windows XP era..


Anyhow, I have no need for GTA5, since I can play Carmageddon again!
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
No they aren't.

Games like GTA V will take up 10% of PS4's available HDD space. Unless you only plan on buying 10 games over PS4's useful life or want the pain of installing/uninstalling, 500GB of PS4's HDD isn't enough.
http://whatisplaystation4.com/why-you-need-to-buy-a-2tb-hard-drive-for-ps4/

As far as console vs. PC gaming ownership costs, it's fairly obvious that the actual cost of gaming is hardware + software. Once that is taken into consideration, PC new vs. console new or used console games vs. Steam/Origin, PC wins by a landslide. Even if you spend $650-1,000 on a new PC and upgrade the CPU/GPU 2-3x times over the 8 years of PS4 ownership, consoles aren't going to be cheaper. This is even more so because we can resell PC parts to offset some of the upgrade costs.

2576909-9817324268-pyrEW.jpg


I personally find pros and cons of both PC and consoles which is why to me owning both is the best of both worlds. With consoles you get a bunch of free games with PS+/XBLG, of course console exclusives and multi-player games with friends is a social experience that's hard to match for the PC. However, with PC you get mods, exclusives/genres where PC dominates like strategy/MMO, and best experience on cross-platform titles. For me the console vs. PC argument is somewhat strange since if you don't buy a PC, you can't enjoy games like Starcraft 2, DOTA, League of Legends, WOW or Age of Empires while there are going to be plenty of excellent PS4/XB1 exclusives not available on the PC. Someone who enjoys gaming will own console(s) and a PC.

The greatest advantage of consoles is if you are < 18 year old kid, it's (1) easier to save $400 for a console than $650-1000 for a PC upfront so you don't think about long-term costs as much; and (2) your parents have a 40" TV or larger while for a PC you'd have to go out and buy a monitor which increases the upfront costs. Once you get PC parts though, upgrading over the long-term makes PC gaming relatively cheap vs. consoles unless you have to have the most cutting edge PC tech (4K, 980 in SLI, 5960X etc.).
 
Last edited:

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I really don't care what a person games on. What I care about is devs releasing the best they can on the platform they choose. The half assed PC ports are a great example of lazy money grabs. I can't really say if the bad ports sell, but it certainly doesn't help their cause to try to sell them when they put zero effort into it.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
As far as console vs. PC gaming ownership costs, it's fairly obvious that the actual cost of gaming is hardware + software. Once that is taken into consideration, PC new vs. console new or used console games vs. Steam/Origin, PC wins by a landslide. Even if you spend $650-1,000 on a new PC and upgrade the CPU/GPU 2-3x times over the 8 years of PS4 ownership, consoles aren't going to be cheaper. This is even more so because we can resell PC parts to offset some of the upgrade costs.

Whoever made that graphic had an agenda. Go to Amazon and compare prices of new releases. They are the same price for every platform. At the top of the page they have links to "featured new games." Every single one was at least $60 on every platform with special editions selling for more. Where is this person buying AAA new releases for PC for $40? The last game I preordered for a console was Final Fantasy XIII-3 which actually was $40. The last PC game I preordered was SimCity, and that turd cost me $80 (I believe it was $60 for the regular edition, still not $40).

Eliminating the software difference, the PC has a $150 advantage over the PS4 over an 8-9 years stretch. Not really a relevant difference at less than $20 a year. That said, the online console services are optional. I never game online with my consoles, I would not purchase the services. Cost advantage back to consoles.

The last part of the equation is because the PC gaming scene continues to evolve and advance at a steady pace you cannot buy a low midrange system and even pretend to think it will be usable in 8 years. A midrange graphics card from 8 years ago would have been something like an HD4830 with 512MB RAM, which doesn't meet the minimum requirements for some of the games being released today. Any gamer knows that minimum requirements are just that. If you want an enjoyable experience, you need to at least meet the recommended specs. 4k will become ubiquitous within 8 or 9 years. ANY video card purchased today, including the GTX 980, is going to be a worthless paper weight in 8 years. You will HAVE to upgrade at some point if you want to play AAA PC games in 8 years, so including just the initial hardware purchase price for the PC is unrealistic wishful thinking.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Reality check : People have been doing it since the PS3 / XB360. That's why official guide's exist:-


It's not some new "niche" that sprang up last week... And yes, "I bought this item for x" sales reviews do tend to indicate why people are buying an item... :rolleyes:

You're veering off onto something else entirely.

Again, this is what I said:

Veliko said:
Of the 10 million consoles sold, the number who will have done it are so minuscule as to be a statistical irrelevance.


Not everyone buys their games full price though

Again, you're veering off onto something else entirely.

This part of the discussion was about whether you could buy a PC with the same performance as a PS4 for the same price.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Games like GTA V will take up 10% of PS4's available HDD space. Unless you only plan on buying 10 games over PS4's useful life or want the pain of installing/uninstalling, 500GB of PS4's HDD isn't enough.
http://whatisplaystation4.com/why-you-need-to-buy-a-2tb-hard-drive-for-ps4/

As far as console vs. PC gaming ownership costs, it's fairly obvious that the actual cost of gaming is hardware + software.

Which is irrelevant when we were talking about whether you could buy a PC that has the same performance as a PS4 for the same price.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
See above, no you can't.

Not quoting your entire post, but here are few ~500 dollar builds that meet or exceed the PS4's capabilities.

i3 2120, 8GBs of RAM, Radeon 7850 2GB.
http://pcpartpicker.com/b/WbRBD3

Above could easily swap in a Haswell i3 now for comparable price

FX-6300, with 7950 3GBs. Little light on the RAM though, only 4GBs.
http://pcpartpicker.com/b/Xf6hP6


Before you spout idiocy that people cannot build gaming systems for ~500 dollars, you may want to check all the people doing exactly that. If you filter by max price, there's several pages of listings though you will have to make sure they're complete builds. Some of them skip cases or whatnot because they already have those parts.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
I'm pretty sure the PS4 CPU is more powerful than an i3.

And if the PC only has 4GB RAM it doesn't meet or exceed the PS4 capabilities.
 

showb1z

Senior member
Dec 30, 2010
462
53
91
Don't forget the cost of XBL/PS+. That's $50/a year. For 6 years that makes a console cost $700. Extra controller makes it $750.
You can sure as hell build a much more capable PC for $750.

But what does the cost matter anyway. For anyone with a proper job and disposable income to spend on frivolities like gaming the difference between a "$400" PS4 and a $1k PC over a 6 year period is negligible. The difference in capabilities is huge though.

Way I see it, cost only matters to kids who need to convince their parents.
 

JumBie

Golden Member
May 2, 2011
1,645
1
71
I'm pretty sure the PS4 CPU is more powerful than an i3.

And if the PC only has 4GB RAM it doesn't meet or exceed the PS4 capabilities.

Problem is, its not. The PS4 CPU is a 1.6GHZ 8-Core CPU. Its based on AMD Jaguar architecture which is pretty much equivalent to the Kabini processors. Also the system only uses a max of 6 cores for games. When you figure a dual core CPU from Intels Haswell lineup can outperform these consoles it only makes sense than 2C/2T i3 can easily outgun the PS4.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I'm pretty sure the PS4 CPU is more powerful than an i3.

It can do more threads, but 1 or 2 of those cores are reserved for the OS. The dual core Ivy Bridge i3 is still a more powerful CPU, and as I said, you can drop in a Haswell i3 for the same price. Haswell i3s out perform even the AMD FX 8xx0 series. Newegg has the i3 4150 for 120.

And if the PC only has 4GB RAM it doesn't meet or exceed the PS4 capabilities.

Those were only the first two on the PCpartspicker list. I'm not intending critique them in detail, but he did go with 4GBs of PC3-1866 RAM for 43 dollars. 8GBs of PC3-1333 run 65 dollars. Hardly an Earth shattering difference in price.

Clearly, its fairly easy to do. Little effort required, but not exactly difficult to do. Its concerning that it is so easy to do so early the 8th gen lifecycle, and shopping for what are low end PC components to boot. If you wanted to build a gaming PC comparable to the Xbox 360 a month after its launch, you'd be buying the best parts available. Today, you're buying the economy parts to do the same thing.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
Again, you're veering off onto something else entirely.

You were the one who started including software costs in the first place as a "moving the goalposts" thing... Then when it was pointed out the game costs are typically higher on consoles (when averaged out over typical 25-30 games over 6-8 years) as part of the natural "hardware loss leader" business model, you suddenly want to exclude it again... :sneaky:

"Which is irrelevant when we were talking about whether you could buy a PC that has the same performance as a PS4 for the same price."

A: It's not "irrelevant" since PS4/XB1 owners themselves are complaining about lack of HDD space en masse and many thinking about spending more upgrading which will obviously affect the target price, and B: It doesn't matter anyway, since even without it, if you really wanted to and stopped making excuses, you could indeed build a gaming rig for $500 or so with similar horsepower. Reality check : Consoles ARE budget PC's. The hardware is simply sold at a loss (for both MS & Sony) due to higher revenue over the lifespan of a game which is priced higher / falls in price much slower than PC's.

I'm pretty sure the PS4 CPU is more powerful than an i3.

Then you are 'sure' wrong:-

Athlon 5350 (4C Jaguar @ 2GHz):-
7Zip - 5,785 (4T)
CineBench 11.5 - 0.5 1T / 1.97 (4T)
Handbrake - 69.6fps (4T)
WinRAR - 635 1T / 2076 (4T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 - 4.2fps (4T)

PS4 & XBOne Consoles (8C Jaguar @ 1.75GHz equivalent):-
7Zip - 10,123 (8T)
Cinebench 11.5 - 0.44 1T / 3.5 (8T)
Handbrake - 122fps (8T)
WinRAR - 555 1T / 3633 (8T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 - 7.4fps (8T)

Intel Avoton (8C Atom @ 2.6GHz):-
7Zip - 13,509 (8T)
Cinebench 11.5 - 0.47 1T / 3.77 (8T)
Handbrake - 130.3fps (8T)
WinRAR - 701 1T / 3838 (8T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 - 7.4fps (8T)

i3-4130 (2C/4T @ 3.4GHz):-
7Zip = 10,166 (4T)
Cinebench 11.5 = 1.48 1T / 3.47 (4T)
Handbrake = 154.1fps (4T)
WinRAR = 1178 1T / 3902 (4T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 = 7.6fps (4T)

http://www.techspot.com/review/826-silverstone-ds380-nas/page5.html

Overall, a PS4 & XB1 have roughly the same CPU "horsepower" as the slowest 3.4GHz i3-4130 Haswell (which has already been replaced by the 3.6GHz i3-4160 Haswell Refresh), with each core being barely faster than a 2.6Ghz Intel Atom. And that's still excluding the fact console games are limited to use only 6 out of the 8 cores, so subtract a further 25% off the 8-core Jaguar console scores above (ie, only 7,592 7zip / 2.6 Cinebench / 2,724 WinRAR, etc... are actually usable for games, which drops overall performance down to barely parity with a Pentium G3258 at stock...)

The CPU's on this gen are much weaker than people want to believe (which is why so many average looking games are capped at 30fps (and would remain so even if they had a GTX 980 stuck in them)). It's even rumored that some 50GB games like Titanfall were released with uncompressed audio because there wasn't even the CPU overhead to do that without increased stutter.
 
Last edited:

JumBie

Golden Member
May 2, 2011
1,645
1
71
You were the one who started including software costs in the first place as a "moving the goalposts" thing... Then when it was pointed out the game costs are typically higher on consoles (when averaged out over typical 25-30 games over 6-8 years) as part of the natural "hardware loss leader" business model, you suddenly want to exclude it again... :sneaky:



A: It's not "irrelevant" since PS4/XB1 owners themselves are complaining about lack of HDD space en masse and many thinking about spending more upgrading which will obviously affect the target price, and B: It doesn't matter anyway, since even without it, if you really wanted to and stopped making excuses, you could indeed build a gaming rig for $500 or so with similar horsepower. Reality check : Consoles ARE budget PC's. The hardware is simply sold at a loss (for both MS & Sony) due to higher revenue over the lifespan of a game which is priced higher / falls in price much slower than PC's.



Then you are 'sure' wrong:-

Athlon 5350 (4C Jaguar @ 2GHz):-
7Zip - 5,785 (4T)
CineBench - 0.5 1T / 1.97 (4T)
Handbrake - 69.6fps (4T)
WinRAR - 635 1T / 2076 (4T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 - 4.2fps (4T)

PS4 & XBOne Consoles (8C Jaguar @ 1.75GHz):-
7Zip - 10,123 (8T)
Cinebench 11.5 - 0.44 1T / 3.5 (8T)
Handbrake - 122fps (8T)
WinRAR - 555 1T / 3633 (8T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 - 7.4fps (8T)

Intel Avoton (8C Atom @ 2.6GHz):-
7Zip - 13,509 (8T)
Cinebench 11.5 - 0.47 1T / 3.77 (8T)
Handbrake - 130.3fps (8T)
WinRAR - 701 1T / 3838 (8T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 - 7.4fps (8T)

i3-4130 (2C/4T @ 3.4GHz):-
7Zip = 10,166 (4T)
Cinebench 11.5 = 1.48 1T / 3.47 (4T)
Handbrake = 154.1fps (4T)
WinRAR = 1178 1T / 3902 (4T)
x264 HD 5.0.1 = 7.6fps (4T)

http://www.techspot.com/review/826-silverstone-ds380-nas/page5.html

Overall, a PS4 & XB1 have roughly the same CPU "horsepower" as the slowest 3.4GHz i3-4130 Haswell (which has already been replaced by the 3.6GHz i3-4160 Haswell Refresh), with each core being barely faster than a 2.6Ghz Intel Atom. And that's still excluding the fact console games are limited to use only 6 out of the 8 cores, so subtract a further 25% off the 8-core Jaguar console scores above (ie, only 7,592 7zip / 2.6 Cinebench / 2,724 WinRAR, etc... are actually usable for games, which drops overall performance down to barely parity with a Pentium G3258 at stock...)

The CPU's on this gen are much weaker than people want to believe (which is why so many average looking games are capped at 30fps). It's even rumored that some 50GB games like Titanfall were released with uncompressed audio because there wasn't even the CPU overhead to do that without increased stutter.

None of those benchmarks matter when you realize that the only thing you are going to be doing on the PS4 is gaming.
 

showb1z

Senior member
Dec 30, 2010
462
53
91
None of those benchmarks matter when you realize that the only thing you are going to be doing on the PS4 is gaming.

Yes, which will make the performance gap even bigger, since those benches scale perfectly with # of cores. Games don't.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
You were the one who started including software costs in the first place as a "moving the goalposts" thing... Then when it was pointed out the game costs are typically higher on consoles (when averaged out over typical 25-30 games over 6-8 years) as part of the natural "hardware loss leader" business model, you suddenly want to exclude it again... :sneaky:

No, I didn't include software costs at all.

You said that PC owners can re-use their old hardware to make a PC cheaper, so I said that console owners can trade-in their old hardware and software to make a new console cheaper.

A: It's not "irrelevant" since PS4/XB1 owners themselves are complaining about lack of HDD space en masse and many thinking about spending more upgrading which will obviously affect the target price, and B:

Talking about future potential upgrades that may need to be made is utterly irrelevant when discussing the initial up front cost of a system.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
None of those benchmarks matter when you realize that the only thing you are going to be doing on the PS4 is gaming.
You appear to not understand that actually works backwards - games typically scale LESS well than synthetic benchmarks which hurts CPU's based around "more weak cores" MORE than it does CPU's based around "few but strong" cores. ie, if code that scales 100% with increased cores "doesn't count" because it's results are too poor, then games that scale only 80% actually make it worse...

Showb1z understood what I was saying (and how core scaling works), you kinda got it back to front though.

You said that PC owners can re-use their old hardware to make a PC cheaper, so I said that console owners can trade-in their old hardware and software to make a new console cheaper.
If you buy a game at $60 then sell it for $15, it's yet another false comparison compared to if you buy the same PC game at $40 or even $5 in a Steam sale.

Talking about future potential upgrades that may need to be made is utterly irrelevant when discussing the initial up front cost of a system.

I think it's now clear you see only what you want to see...
 
Last edited: