PC Building: Turning a page?

[olds]

This statement does not compute. One would expect your upgrade cycle to be longer if not gaming.

I game but I keep my computers about 5 years. As the computer ages, I just play older games. But I generally over build. My last build (Dec 2012) was an i7/16GB/SSD, gaming/HTPC. I spent $1200 (and reused two HHDs) but I'll likely keep it for 5 years.
Funny thing is, I have BF3 and COD BO II and I mostly play COD 4.

 

[VirtualLarry]

For me, the current computer I'm using, is basically the first one that I've owned and used, that wasn't custom-built. (Aside from two others, a Dell I bought off of Craigslist and re-sold, and an e-Machines with Vista that I gave away to a relative, after getting it for a steal. But I didn't actually use either of those as my main rig.)

It's a Gateway slimline G630 Sandy Bridge dual-core rig. I actually downsized my rig from my Thuban X6 in a Rosewill Blackhawk case with a GTX460, since I care more about my power consumption than gaming right now.

I was never a big Windows PC gamer. Most of the games that I used to play and enjoy were for DOS.

 

[Subyman]

I play mostly indie games now, which hardly require any power. I build my PC as a hobby mostly. There's no way I really need a top tier GPU.

 

[infoiltrator]

Watch the for "FOR SALE" threads for interesting bits for a closer to the present build/update/?

 

[geniusloci]

Getting older has changed things a great deal. But the market has changed as well. The communities aren't as tightly knit in most cases, and DRM and such place artificial restrictions on what people are willing to play. I personally have never played BF3 even though it looks incredible, because I don't trust EA, and feel that Origin doesn't need to examine my damn HDD for me to play their games. Some of these companies are bringing it upon themselves. I'm also beyond the 'competition for fun' in gaming stage, and am tremendously annoyed at the huge range of cheating in online gaming in general. There's no need to play things other people are intentionally trying to ruin.

Much of the time I would rather watch a video or read a book than play a game now. I will say that I tremendously enjoyed Tomb Raider, but feel such gems probably only come out every few years. The last game I enjoyed as much was Plants Vs. Zombies.

My last 1155 Asus board crapped out on me, so I bought a gigabyte mobo and threw my 2600k in it and kept going. I don't see an upgrade being meaningful for another 3 to 5 years. This will be the longest I've had a computer in the last decade. The market is changing for computing in general, and I think the small form factor Intel NUC stuff is probably the near future of the home desktop. Building PCs is going to essentially disappear, and my interest might wane significantly after that.

 

[SKORPI0]

I feel the same way. Spent almost $2.5k rig (see sig) for video editing/encoding last sept. and I barely use it. Not a gamer at all.
Still using my almost 6 year old Asus P5K Premium, Q6600 @ 3.2GHz, 8GB DDR2-1067 system. :\

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mFx8 - Not including the $309 Yamakasi 2703.
Still need another GTX 680 4GB for SLI and 32GB DDR3-1866 to complete it. Looking to add a Liquid CPU cooler too, another $140.

 

[mfenn]

Games are far, far less complex than they've ever been.

When you have games from 10+ years ago that used a mouse and/or joystick PLUS a keyboard where many, if not all, of the keys "did something", you can't argue these games are less complex than today.

Almost all new games can be used with an Xbox controller or just a mouse.

"Old" games had manuals that you had to have and not just for copy protection. A classic example is any of the great simulators: Gunship, Falcon series, etc.

And it wasn't just the simulators that were more complex.

Yes, games have changed but not necessarily for the better.

Coding-wise, games are more complex...gameplay, not so much.

If you think that complex games aren't around anymore, you're just not looking in the right places.

Digital Combat Simulator It takes 5 minutes just to properly start the engines on the A-10.

QED.

 

[mfenn]

Every 2-3 years since around 1998, I've built a new rig for myself. My last one was built in 2009, so a few days ago I began my research, decided on the new parts, had a lot of items in my New Egg wish list, and just needed to press the buy button. But now I'm hesitating.

This would be my first build as a 30-something. I don't really game anymore aside from firing up Steam once every 4-6 months to enjoy the "classics" like Portal, Day of Defeat, CS, etc. I'm the old fart still waiting for Half-Life: EP3 to come out!!! I still think that Battlefield: 1942 is the best of that series!!! I just never got hooked into the newer, flashier games that (to me) often seem poorly coded and buggy.

Another big factor is that I have so much going on in life that I hardly have time to start a new game and I no longer live amongst a group of gaming friends.

The most "intensive" thing I do with my machine is Photoshop!

So do I want to sink another $1k (give or take) into a decent mid-level box (Core i5/SSD/Radeon 7850)? The more I think about it I think the answer is no. I think I've turned a page of sorts. I am getting older!

Alternatives include a HTPC/DVR/CAPS rig or a newer laptop. The former would provide me with a cheaper TiVo alternative (don't have cable nor a DVR) but would also become CAPS/Computer Audiophile rig capable of providing clean lossless audio to a future Naim DAC + Naim integrated amplifier.

You know, I have less time to play games than I used to (good ol' time vs. money dilemma), but that has actually increased my hardware demands. I don't get a ton of time to play, so the time that I do get to play better be perfect.

I suffered through plenty of low framerate games when I was a broke college student, but now I'm seriously considering buying a new GPU before I dive into Tomb Raider. Why? Because I only get 30 FPS with everything all maxed out. I want my game playing time to be spent at 60 dammit!

 

[mfenn]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that you managed to name about ten games across a decade and a half--hundreds of games, even thousands, were released in that time period. That's not even one good game a year, or even one in 100. The shoes that need to be filled are the same size as ever.

Agree 100%. It's easy to look back with rose-colored glasses and think that games were generally higher quality "back in the day". That's simply not true because (a) we only remember good games and (b) we were more likely to gloss over crappy design.

For example, Giant Bomb's database lists 5412 games that came out between 01/01/1990 and 12/31/1999. That's more than one game per day for 10 years. Those aren't all classics, or even very good.