PC Gaming Doom & Gloom Thread

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MikeyLSU

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2005
2,747
0
71
Right now,
E4300 around $125 OC from 1.8 to 2.8 with most MOBO
MOBO around $100
RAM 2x1GB $60 in the hot deals section
PSU $50
Case $50
HDD $60
Video Card $150

Most people already have a Keyboard/Mouse/Monitor/Maybe even case/and HDD

But assuming you still have to buy a HDD and Case, here is a damn good computer for $600, this is about what I have and I can play every game at maximum at 1280x1024. If you already have a case and HDD like I did, it is now only $500 for all of this give or take some. You could probably even do better on the MOBO
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
There aren't any games that REQUIRE you to use a console type controller, period.

I bought a console controller for my PC, (not a 360 type, just a 3rd party usb) because it's easier to play racing games with it while I save for my steering wheel.

That being said, there is no reason to be upset, no-one is forcing you to play with any sort of input device.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
The mouse is superior, the keyboard is not. Keyboard's only true advantage is its vast amount of keys (buttons), but that doesn't give your the precision of an analog stick.

I think this might be good in the long run as it might get something that fuses the mouse with something better than just the keyboard.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
meh,

KBAM won't go away, joystick controls have been around for a long time on PCs, most gamers just ignore them.
 

Noema

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2005
2,974
0
0
Originally posted by: pontifex

so we're looking at about $826 and we still have to buy a case, monitor, OS, hard drives, motherboard, PSU, sound card, possibly a network card, optical drives, keyboard, mouse, and speakers.

thats not "very cheap" to me.

I agree. That's the biggest hurdle in my opinion.

Gaming PCs have always been expensive. The problem is that, for the first time, we have consoles that can play games at resolutions that rival a PC. And those consoles often cost less than a top of the line videocard.

It's hard to justify spending $2500-3000 on a high end gaming box when, say, Lost Planet looks just as good on a $400 X-Box 360.

PC games need not only to look vastly superior to their console conterparts; they need to scale better to hardware.
 

gneGne

Member
Jan 2, 2007
103
0
0
Hmm I don't really care if Alan Wake or games of the like will be mainly geared towards using a controller. As long as it is done well, I don't see the problem.
As long as I can keep playing my twitch-style FPS/RTS (Quake/StarCraft) games with KBAM.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
xbox needs a serious rethink

One positive thing (for Microsoft) is that it has probably helped DirectX. Are games made for Direct3D not easier to port to the xbox platform than games made for OpenGL? That helps to hurt Linux. Neverwinter Nights 2 is an example of this (the OpenGL graphics engine was gutted and replaced with Direct3D, probably to help with a future console port), but a console port never came to be (probably due to time restraints on Atari's part) or is it just as hard to port a Direct3D title to the xbox 360 as it is for an OpenGL title? (I am not familiar with the SDKs for them, but I do know the hardware is quite a bit different from the xbox1, but I imagine that Microsoft would make it as easy as possible to ensure that games could be ported between window's Direct3D and whatever the xbox 360 uses in its sdk).

Microsoft should have stayed out of the console hardware business, IMO, and just focus on buying up game companies and publishing them for all console platforms (Sony and Nintendo) + windows. Hey, they could probably get a good deal if they wanted to buy Infogrames (Atari's parent company) or Interplay (fallout MMORPG rights) right now. Halo (being a fair quality shooter by console standards) would have been a success on the Playstation 2 and the GameCube (not sure how much Microsoft paid for Bungie) and what does Microsoft have Rare working on these days? I know Bungie probably has its hands full being a Halo sequel machine.

If Microsoft had focused more on games than creating their own console platform, Vanguard Saga of Heroes might still be backed by Microsoft and Sigil Games might still be independent rather than being owned by SOE;)

Also in hindsight, it would have been good for them to buy Vivendi Games before World of Warcraft hit and Vivendi was own the verge of bankruptcy.

why has MS *lost* 5 billion dollars on the xbox platform so far?
Microsoft is still relatively new in the console (and even the hardware) business. In the longterm with services such as xbox live with its online store & subscription, I mean cant one not only buy games, extra content for games, and movies through it? But, IMO, if they really want to milk it, they need a smash hit MMO for xbox live to hook everyone on it's subscription. Being able to share this service with select Windows games will help (coming later this year, right?)

another *admission* that the xbox is too G-D SLOW

This is probably an admission that the xbox 360 is too G-D expensive to make (although it cant hold a candle to the PS3's costs) considering how they probably will need to cut prices sometime in the near future to remain competitive. The new graphics chip and CPU for the xbox 360 II, is it going to have separate games from the current 360 or is Microsoft going to use these new CPUs / GPUs as a cost cutting measure and still maintain the same software across both platforms? If so, this is probably a very good move, for it will allow Microsoft greater elbowroom to cut prices since their costs will be lower. (This may have been covered in that thread you linked, rather long and I only skimmed through part of it). An xbox 360 elite equivalent made with these new (cheaper) components priced considerably lower could go a long way to help xbox 360 sales.

and the PC gaming IS making a big comeback
With games like Dragon Age, Crysis, and the utter dominance of PCs in the lucrative MMO market, I would say you are correct and I am very glad the the PC has a bright future (for I am a PC gamer):thumbsup:
 

MBrown

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
5,724
35
91
Originally posted by: Noema
Originally posted by: pontifex

so we're looking at about $826 and we still have to buy a case, monitor, OS, hard drives, motherboard, PSU, sound card, possibly a network card, optical drives, keyboard, mouse, and speakers.

thats not "very cheap" to me.

I agree. That's the biggest hurdle in my opinion.

Gaming PCs have always been expensive. The problem is that, for the first time, we have consoles that can play games at resolutions that rival a PC. And those consoles often cost less than a top of the line videocard.

It's hard to justify spending $2500-3000 on a high end gaming box when, say, Lost Planet looks just as good on a $400 X-Box 360.

PC games need not only to look vastly superior to their console conterparts; they need to scale better to hardware.

You don't need to spend $2500-3000 on a Gaming PC. I'm sure you can build one for less. And if you already have a monitor dvd rom etc then all you need to get is just the meat. Most motherboard have built in sound cards (i for one can't tell a difference between a good soundcard and a built in soundcard, and most have network cards in them.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Uhh the Games for Windows markings only require that you support the XBOX 360 controller... not that you require people to use it.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: manowar821
There aren't any games that REQUIRE you to use a console type controller, period.

I bought a console controller for my PC, (not a 360 type, just a 3rd party usb) because it's easier to play racing games with it while I save for my steering wheel.

That being said, there is no reason to be upset, no-one is forcing you to play with any sort of input device.

try playing RE4 with a KB ... no mouse
:Q

sucks

i use a controller

they did patch in a mouse for the European version

Well that's why the option should be there! I'm just saying, no-one is forcing anyone.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
So much of good game play is all about the control interface... game designers and programmers know this.

The keyboard (or something like it) and mouse and not going anywhere for PC games. But we we'll see more games that have the option to use a 360 controller where it makes sense.

 

MmmSkyscraper

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
9,475
1
76
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Capcom has always had extremely poor PC ports... I don't know why you'd expect this one to be different ;). Remember Chaos Legion?

I've never played a Capcom game, not on the PC anyway. Probably had a few on the Amiga, maybe Chase HQ? :p

EDIT: Oh and by the way, my Lost Planet has never crashed on my PC (using DX10 version on Vista Ult with 8800GTX with latest drivers).

This is the only game to BSOD on either of my machines in 3 years. Oh I forgot STALKER which just froze up and had to be power-cycled. Everything else works perfectly, even BF2 :shocked:

Also, what self-righteous FPS gamer needs to be noob'd and told which buttons to press to pick up an item.

Uh, I didn't say that anywhere? :confused:
 

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
Not every game is best suited with a mouse and keyboard. I like having the option of either using a controller when I want, or using a mouse.

 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: Noema
Originally posted by: pontifex

so we're looking at about $826 and we still have to buy a case, monitor, OS, hard drives, motherboard, PSU, sound card, possibly a network card, optical drives, keyboard, mouse, and speakers.

thats not "very cheap" to me.

I agree. That's the biggest hurdle in my opinion.

Gaming PCs have always been expensive. The problem is that, for the first time, we have consoles that can play games at resolutions that rival a PC. And those consoles often cost less than a top of the line videocard.

It's hard to justify spending $2500-3000 on a high end gaming box when, say, Lost Planet looks just as good on a $400 X-Box 360.

PC games need not only to look vastly superior to their console conterparts; they need to scale better to hardware.

What are you talking about? There is no need, it is inevitable.

If anything the fact that games have to scale well with PC hardware and they still end up eliminating any graphical advantage (and then swiftly extending that gap) new consoles might have had over PCs is a testament to how awesome computer hardware evolution is.
 

UF Matt

Member
May 20, 2007
125
0
0
I also prefer keyboard + mouse. I can't stand console controllers. As long as keyboard + mouse is supported, I don't care though.
 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
here is one of the greatest threads to ever grace video and it is still current

Forget John Romero - XBox360 and PS3 ARE *Doomed*

in short PC gaming experiences a renaissance ... the PS3 *dies* ... MS rethinks the xbox and the Wii wins the console war

it is all 'in there' ... i won't defend ANY of my statements here
That PS4 remark in the thread is horsecrap. Its just the PSX II. Just like the PSX version of the PS2.




If a keyboard and mouse was supported on the 360, it would be over for the PC.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Uh, I didn't say that anywhere? :confused:

You complained about the buttons, so my comment was essentially, "does it really matter?"
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
I am a HUGE proponent of games on PC whenever possible, especially games that are available on the consoles. You know, to promote the PC platform and protest artificially high prices on consoles... like Shadowrun PC vs. Shadowrun X360 and now Bioshock.

But now something else is tearing apart PC gaming: Retail vs. Digital Distribution. Without retailers on-board, you can't compete with the consoles and games will stop getting PC support. Microsoft's Games for Windows "Activation" crap is now RUINING every advantage retail PC software had, such as tangibility for selling and trading. Microsoft basically took every advantage retail had over digital distribution and threw them away without giving a single advantage or reason for the consumer.

I bought Bioshock for the PC even though I now own an XBOX 360. Why? Because it was $34.66 + Reward Zone points. The savings from buying PC games instead of console games are actually significantly more in most cases, enough to EASILY pay for the more expensive hardware and then some if you are a heavy game player that would otherwise be buying these games on a console. Shadowrun launched for $37 with a free $37 Flight Simulator X and then included Halo 2 for free the very next week! This is compared to $60 for XBOX 360 with nothing included. Half-Life 2 Collector's Edition with T-Shirt went down to $18.96 at Circuit City while it was still $85 on Steam. HL2: Episode One was $7.99 the week after it launched at Circuit City and that 110% price-matched to $6.XX when I picked up mine. Heck, SiN was the same way a month before that. Hell, when Spideman 3 launched for $60 and $70 on the PS3, I got paid for buying it on PC instead! I just 110% price-matched at Best Buy to get it for eight-something and then took the SM3 ticket stub I already had and spent the included $10 check at the theater snack bar (actually, you kinda have to pay me to take that piece of crap, but I have the other two movie games so...).

I've been trying to call 2K support to bitch about Bioshock: I have multiple PCs I could chose to activate and play it on (exclusively):
A gaming laptop with a Core Duo, 2GB DDR2 and an X1600
An XP MCE SFF general-purpose desktop (for most XP-only games) with an HT P4 3.4GHz, 2GB DDR and a 7800GS
An XP MCE XPC SFF (for home theater) with a 2.5GHz 500MHz FSB Athlon XPm (Barton), 2GB DDR, and a 7800GS
My old high-end gaming system (being replaced) with Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 2GB DDR, and 2x7800GT SLi
My new high-end gaming system with Core 2 Quad Q6600, 4GB DDR2, and a borrowed 7800GT SLi (until I settle on some DX10 cards).

How do I choose? I won't. The only one with Windows Vista is the 64-bit 4GB C2Q system that is currently borrowing non-DX10 video cards with no HDCP. Without finalizing the video card selection on the new high-end gaming system, I won't activate Windows or any games on it (certainly not a DX10-featured game like Bioshock with DX9 cards). Like I said: I won't chose a system to play it on. That crap is going right back to the store and I am going to download the Steam version.

Now, If I bought the XBOX version:
I could play it in our (my and my twin brother's) shared entertainment room in my backyard building.
I could play it at my brother's apartment on my 52" XBR LCD HDTV (he keeps his 30" XBR CRT HDTV at "the barn"/entertainment room)
I could go over to my friend's house and show him. He could even borrow it.
My brother could go over to his neighbor's apartment and show him on his neighbor's console.
He could take it to work and play it on their XBOX 360 (it's a cable Internet company, so they keep one in the office for XBOX Live testing and they are encouraged to use it).
We could take it to the apartment building's community room and play it on that XBOX 360 (as well as arrange LAN parties and social get-togethers).

Until recently, we could do all these things with PC games too but, thanks to Games for Windows Product Activation, I must now pick ONE PC to activate it on and hang on to my second activation like a life-raft in case it's ever needed (it's not like I keep the same PC around forever).

The Steam version gives me all the same freedom as the console version and then some (I don't need the disc)... well, except that I can't resell it. Heck, actually, it's simply against the rules to sell it. I very well could register each Steam game with a different email account and sell the account. That's something I can not do with the retail version once it has been used/activated.

This activation is completely different than Halo 2, which functioned without activation (Bioshock requires it). Halo 2 only needs it to play online and play without the disc. It's also completely different from Flight Simulator X, which only needed it to play online as I was told (or to play online without a time limit... something like that). That's also different from Shadowrun, which only needs it to play on Live against XBOX 360 players. That, too, is different from Lost Planet, which activated online with Steam. So far, all of these have been GFW games but, in turn, they are all different still from EA online games and their "Internet activation required" ones (like Battlefield 2142). Here, it simply means that your key is locked to your online account's login & password details (not to a particular PC). Hell, that should be what activation means universally! Why the heck does activation need to be anything more than that?! At least you could re-sell a game with your account details. What ticked me off was when I had Battlefield Complete Collection and Battlefield 2 in my backlog and I loaned them to friends for them to play while I played through other games in my backlog. Sure enough, when I got to them, I found that they were already used and EA would not let me reset them. My friends had long forgotten the details or used their other EA accounts, considering them like one-time hassles for a game they would only be playing for a week or two. Those two in particular (BF Complete and BF2) did NOT have the "Internet activation required" banner like their later games.

My point is, because the definition of "Activation" is not consistent even across Games for Windows products (Flight Simulator X, Halo 2, Shadowrun, Lost Planet, Bioshock), it is not sufficient to simply put "Internet required for activation" on the Bioshock box (in small print on the back, but that's not the point...). All that did for me was make me think "Good, I simply wont activate because I don't need to play without the disc like Halo 2 does. Tangibility is more important to me." I was set up for a rude awakening. "Internet required for activation" is not the same as saying "Internet activation required" like Steam or EA games, yet it absolutely does require it like they do while at the same time not giving you any of the benefits those two have (use on any PC for EA and Steam, use without physical media EVER for Steam, etc).

STOP TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY FROM ME. You are killing retail PC gaming.
 

Dethfrumbelo

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2004
1,499
0
0
Originally posted by: sushicide
Nothing else would seem fun if you're getting laid.

As you get older, even that loses some of its drive. Besides, that's a body thing. Games are usually a mind thing. Two different types of experiences.


 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
njdevilsfan87's Loss of gaming interest thread was recently merged with this one, I am bumping this one in case anyone wonders where it went.