For those of you with high end gaming computers

[karioskasra]

I don't know where people get the argument that you can only play PC games with superior graphics for 2 years then can't play any more for the last 2. Console specs don't improve either -- if your current PC hardware's graphics surpass current gen console graphics, then it will forever do so, irregardless of how low you have to set your resolution for upcoming games. The option to improve upon it is there, but is in no ways mandatory.

Like someone said before, I use my pc for many things, for which I have to upgrade anyway. The only upgrade I could consider a gaming upgrade would be a video card. That said, I generally find myself using my consoles for "fun" and "relaxed" gaming while using my pc for more serious gaming such as rpgs and competitive online stuff. They both have their uses.

 

[Maximilian]

Its worth it for me as my PC is a multi funtional thing. It does everything, plays music, videos, games, i do my uni work on it, i get the internet on it. Its made every other entertainment appliance apart from the TV (although i know it can become a TV too i haven't researched this much) totally useless.

I don't really have a high end anymore but its high end compared with the majority of hardware out there (based on that valve hardware survey) and it will do me for another few years maybe with a graphics card upgrade along the way.

 

[JohnAn2112]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
i want to upgrade really bad.

almost sons70 style... :Q

:laugh:

 

[shortylickens]

Not any more.
It used to feel that way back in the Radeon 8500 days, and certainly with my 9700 Pro.

But not since the X800 Pro/GeForce 7900GTX, do I feel like I am getting my value out of having the best available components at the time. Thats probably why I still dont have anything in the 8800 series.


And its all because of the games.
Ever since the era Deus Ex and its peers, I havent really enjoyed computer gaming much. Elder Scrolls 3 might be the only exception.

The games just arent much fun anymore and certainly dont encourage me to have a new 400 dollar video card every year.

After this latest batch of so-called "HOT" games, I think I may just give it up entirely. The only thing that could change my mind is an official announcement of KOTOR 3 or somebody working on a game that has the same depth and actually plays like Baldurs Gate 2.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BigToque
Many people say that the "best games" are on the PC. They've got better graphics, updates, mods, etc.

If you share this feeling, do you feel that the cost required to keep your system up-to-date is reasonable given how much better you feel computer games really are?

I personally find the cost of keeping a computer powerful enough to play games is far too expensive given the benefits I get for a PC game over a console game.

i find it cheaper than buying a new console for $500 and then paying $10 to $20 more for every single game i buy over the 5 year life of the console - that is $2000 over the 5 year life of a console [at only 20 games a year].

That $2000 *not wasted* paying license fees to MS, Sony or Nintendo gets me a really nice budget gaming rig that i can ALSO write off on my taxes as it is my "business machine"
[just the HW, not the games ]

once i build my rig, it is relatively cheap to upgrade ... in my own rig - built in May, a cheap $200 Quad core .45 nm CPU and another cheap 2900xt [$170 more for xfire] will keep me for another full year of maxed-out full detail gaming at 16x10.

 

[potato28]

I'd rather have the PC over a console. Cheaper in the long run, more functional and cheaper when you want better visuals.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: potato28
I'd rather have the PC over a console. Cheaper in the long run, more functional and cheaper when you want better visuals.

thats starting to become my feeling with this whole games for windows thing and compatibility with the xbox360 controller...

 

[CitizenSnips]

I recently finished building my around $1800 rig complete with new 22" monitor, and I was worried about feeling ripped off, but considering I was using a Dell XPS laptop for the previous 5 years up until now and that suited me pretty well, my reasonably high end rig will be getting a lot of use for me, it's already ludicrously fun playing CoD4 and Stalker and all my new games that I couldn't play very well with my laptop's specs. With how much I use my PC I see it as a good use of my money and a wise investment for myself.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I have a Playstation 3 and an old PC (Athlon 64 4000+, 2gb ram, nforce3 ultra, x1950 Pro 512mb, audigy 2zs, and a 1st gen raptor).

I do not game on the PS3 (it is a Blu-Ray player / HTPC, with the exception of a used copy of FEAR that I own for the PS3). The reason behind this is that all of the games that I enjoy / want to play (with the exception of Mass Effect) are PC exclusives (with a small handful being cross platform).

My PC of low worth plays all of the games that I enjoy at good resolutions and quality settings, as a matter of fact, my PS3 is probably worth more than my PC. Some previous gen hardware can run new games as long as you do not have to have 16X AF, 8X FSAA, and resolutions higher than 1600x1200. I doubt console games use 16X AF and 8X FSAA anyways.....

 

[CKent]

Define "high end". I didn't vote, because I don't consider my PC high end. But I definitely think it's well more than worth it. You don't have to have the latest and greatest.

 

[djnsmith7]

Originally posted by: Rudee
A lot of people upgraded their pc's to play Crysis, and didn't play for long until they either finished the game or got bored with it.

We went through this with BF2...But I'm nowhere near bored of playing it...

 

[fidelissemper]

The highest level hardware is never justifiable in my opinion. I've been doing PC gaming almoste exclusively (my ps2 and gamecube is still gathering dust) and my mid-range self-built machines are definitely worth the money.

It reall comes down to knowing which elements in your PC hardware is the bottleneck and what games you are expecting to run. You can also look at things from an expandability standpoint and that is very economic. I am running on a 3700+ right now with a 939 socket board and a 7800 gt. i can literally pop about 350-400 bucks right now to get a dual core processor, another 7800gt for sli and expand my ram and my system will get so much more boost. i spend about 800 bucks on this rig almost 2 years ago and it's been capable of runnig various games (not well but capable). if i got rid of the bottle neck my cpu gpu has and get a bit more ram i don't see why i can't run things like crysis smoothly. and it only costs me 400 bucks and i got something that's considered mid/high end gaming.

 

[Fenixgoon]

as a midrange/low-end buyer, i feel like i get a pretty decent bang for the buck. I picked up an X1800XT for a net cost of $40, and it plays most things cranked up. Crysis ran 1280x1024 all medium except motion blur and post processing (both high). it ran and looked great, and i enjoyed the game very much.

what i don't understand is how people can expect every game to run maxed on a super rig, simply because every time there's a new video card, someone releases a newer game that is more graphically intensive and rips everything apart. you'd think people would see the cycle

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: BigToque
Many people say that the "best games" are on the PC. They've got better graphics, updates, mods, etc.

If you share this feeling, do you feel that the cost required to keep your system up-to-date is reasonable given how much better you feel computer games really are?

I personally find the cost of keeping a computer powerful enough to play games is far too expensive given the benefits I get for a PC game over a console game.

there's a huge difference between a high end pc and a pc that is good enough to play games. you don't need the latest and greatest technnology to play games. older tech will still work or even the lower end models of the new tech.

sure you might not be able to play on the highest settings, but even if you don't, games can still look pretty damn good.

 

[Aikouka]

My PC cost around $3500-4000 when I first built it and the only thing that peeves me is the video card and the utter crap that I seem to always get. I've never bought a high-end video card that wasn't bad out of the box. They run for awhile but will eventually die all the while displaying weird anomalies such as messed up textures, dropping and resuming video and locking up after many attempts of resuming a crashing driver.

But the reason why I'm willing to spend a decent chunk of change is that I do more than just game on my PC. I use two monitors as I tend to do a lot at once and being that my game of choice is World of Warcraft, the ability to multi-task while gaming is much easier than in a FPS.

I don't go for the highest end parts but the parts I buy are usually good for their price. Like I have a Q6600 rather than one of the Extreme processors.

 

[9mak9]

I just spent $1400 to build my own computer (which includes a $300 22 inch monitor) and I plan on upgrading it to meet standards when the time calls for it...I depends on preference mostly...

PCs are mostly for personal play while consoles are more geared towards playing with more parties. This is not always the case but the Wii, Mario Party, sports games, shooters are all made mostly for co-op play and are fun at that. You can do co-ops on PC but its less likely. PC games are have the MMO and adventure games which i love to play and IMO its easier to shoot people with a mouse over an analog stick.

PC games right now look better then consoles and think about when '09 hits how good the PC games are going to look and the consoles will be unchanged. Also regular updates and bug fixes are game savers (imagine if you couldnt download the patch for witcher and had to play through how it was before)

and of of course there are so many more things to do on the pc over a console.

I will always be a pc player...not a mac cause I am not rebuying all of my games but when I get a roomate I will prob buy the wii and maybe ps3 so we can play co-op games.

also the "high-end" system is kinda vague...someone can spend $5k on a computer or less than $2k and the tradeoff isnt that much. You also do not have the upgrade constantly...i bought a quad core and 4gb of ram and I plan on holding onto those for awhile. the only thing that needs to be upgraded usually is the graphics card but even that can be untrue. I had the 6800 card for over 2 yrs and it still worked well until I got my 8800gt

 

[mordantmonkey]

i bought a quad core dell with 22" widescreen for $500, 8800GT for $220, 4GB ram for $70. So for ~$800, yes i think i'm getting value.

even thinking of gaming only, compare $800 - $250 display = $550 considering the much cheaper games...
and that's not even considering all of the other functionality/freedom that you never could get on a console.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Well, my graphics card is high-end. And it definitely delivers in graphics-intensive games. My computer also runs Oblivion well too, although I think I need a multi-core processor for it to really run smooth. But yes, the mods are worth it.

 

[jjones]

I'm struggling with this concept right now. I currently run a rig that was built a couple years ago - 3500+, 2 gigs of ram, 7600gs - and I like it very well. It plays the older games (2005 and before) great and has all the computing power I need for anything else I do. I don't see my general computing power needs rising all that much, but in order to game, I need to upgrade because gaming has now so far outpaced any other computing requirement.

I've just decided I'll just have to be well behind in gaming. 2 to 3 years behind, because I just can't justify buying newer, expensive hardware that will run current games. I'll replace parts as needed and continue to upgrade economically, but that will keep well behind the gaming curve.

I was considering blowing the money on building a new rig because I was excited about UT3 coming out, but the demo and subsequent release of the game left me so completely underwhelmed, I decided to put it off. I suppose if a great new game came out that I absolutely had to play immediately, I might succumb to building a new rig on newer hardware.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: coldmeat

Originally posted by: TallBill
No, but I spent extra on my pc now to make it last for 3-4 years untill I'm done with school.

Q6600, 8800GTX, etc

That's exactly what I did. It cost a lot at first, but I don't think I'll need to upgrade for a while.

Same. My last upgrade was almost 2.5 years ago. I don't plan on upgrading again until they come out with cards that can play Crysis at max settings silky smooth

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Don't worry BigToque, as you get older you will figure out that even the High end computers are really not that much money compaired to other things in life.

I just spend $600 BP/Wing for Scuba... I still have a $500 regulator and a $1100 Drysuit to buy

So yah you ain't kiddin'

 

[BladeVenom]

I would have a decent computer whether I played games or not. To have a gaming PC is only the cost of a good graphics card, which is cheaper than a console.

 

[zpsyx9]

One important part of current gen gaming is the monitor. Most monitors can't support a composite / HDMI input but support a '1080p' (actually 1920x1200 is higher resolution) resolution from a PC. You can easily find a monitor that does this for less than $300. Finding a 1080p HDTV for your games console will most likely run you at least $600. A few controllers, games, an HDTV, and a PS3 will cost about as much as a HIGH END gaming system (self built), and I can guarantee you it will run new games for more than 2 years. It's true current gen games don't look a ton better on PC to justify the PC vs PS3 / XBOX price. If you already own an HDTV and you're looking for the best route to HD gaming, consoles would be your best choice at the moment, that will probably change as the consoles age.

And then theres Wii, which is an entirely different beast. Its cheap enough you could get an xbox/ps3/pc AND a wii no problem.

edit: I lied the cheapest monitor i could find that does 1920x1200 is about 350, BUT the cheapest HDTV i could find that does 1080p is 880. So ya my point stays =)

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Well said, zpsyx9. A friend of mine has a 360 and he must have put $600-700 into it already, and he doesn't even have an HDTV. Lots of people forget that console manufacturers don't make their money from the consoles themselves.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Tiamat
I don't feel that the cost is too high. My computer has lasted 5 years, it was great then, it chugs along now, but that doesnt stop me from gaming at 1920x1080, just at 30fps rather than 70fps now. (it cost 800$ then)

I'll be upgrading sometime in the near future, it will cost me about 800$.

Since I use my PC for normal tasks outside of gaming, I don't mind the cost as I use it all the time.

What do you consider is the cost for a high-end gaming box's guts? I'm not talking about ultra-high end SLI / Ultra configs mind you.

I'd say a relatively high-end computer would be around $1500, and without spending anything extra, you might be able to play new games for about 2 years.

With a console I can spend $300-$400, play all the games released for it over 4 years. I can buy a $400 computer to do everything else.

So for someone like me, to have a PC, I'd be spending almost twice as much, get to play new games for about 2 years less than a console and the only additional benefit I get for the first 2 years is higher resolution, addons, mods, and maybe a few PC exclusive games. For me it just doesn't make sense.

Are you serious that 5 years ago you spent $800 on your computer, have not changed anything or spent anything else and can play games at 1920x1080? If so, I might change my opinion.

What are you talking about? A relatively High-End computer cost nowhere near 1500 at all. Only dumbasses pay for and consider 10-15% performance extra to be HIGH END.

I think your view of what a fast computer is really needs to be changed. A dual core e4300 or equivalent can overclock to 3.0ghz on stock air. That is as much power as any game needs. A 250 dollar video card is all you NEED. 2g of cheap, fast DDR2 is all you NEED. A sturdy case for 80 bucks is all you NEED. A cheap DVD burner is all you NEED. a 250g SATA II HD is all you NEED. A good Gigabyte, Abit, Asus mobo is all you NEED. And a midrange 500w PSU is all you NEED. Have I even gotten to 850 bucks yet?

~110 cpu
~250 video
~50 ram
~130 mobo
~80 case
~65 psu
~30 dvd
~60 hd
----------------

835 bucks. Toss in a 250$ 22" monitor, keyboard/mouse and a headset and you are in the top tier of gaming. Now if you want to go wasting your money on enthusiest stuff like quad core, X-fi, G15s and razer mice then that is a personal choice but its by no means required.