Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
Go buy a console then. Have fun with your $60 unmoddable games and $50 controllers. I haven't turned on my 360 in almost a month.
Your sources of information fail. I'm using one 8800GT since January. Unless you plan on playing Crysis at 1920x1200 you have no need to upgrade.
Nex gen experience? Haha, you sound like those Microsoft advertisements that are plastered on the front pages of the Xbox Live screen. If 1280x720 at 30fps with no AA is your idea of a nex gen experience then go for it. Consoles are very well marketed and the effect on people shows.
A PC gamer does not necessarily mean one is a hardware enthusiast.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
I play most of my games on an X2 3800+ (2.0GHz), 9600GSO 384MB, at 1920x1200. Some games get upset with the size of the screen, but most of the time I'm playing on medium-high settings and enjoy the experience.
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
I've been playing on my 1900xt for over 2 years now, and i paid under 250 for it. I just recently upgraded to a gtx260 for 220 and love it. If your upgrading every 3 months your doing something wrong.
For the record, i like my xbox 360 for what it does, but it is not high def gaming imo. The only way to get true high def gaming(i.e. 1080p) is w/ a PC. The xbox runs most games at 1280x720, but i've seen some games where i would debate whether it's even running that high.
For the record, i like my xbox 360 for what it does, but it is not high def gaming imo. The only way to get true high def gaming(i.e. 1080p) is w/ a PC. The xbox runs most games at 1280x720, but i've seen some games where i would debate whether it's even running that high.
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,074
- 1,554
- 126
Umm, just because your video card is not "top of the line" it doesn't mean it's "at the end of it's lifespan" .....
A single 8800GT can play everything that's out at a decent resolution with decent settings and still look better than PS3/Xbox 360. I usually upgrade my video card once every 2 years or so and there hasn't been a single game that's come out that I couldn't play because my video card was underpowered. Now, there have been games where I had to set it on "Medium" or once in a great while, I have had to run a non-native resolution (since my monitor is 1920x1200), but overall, I spend about $200 every 2 years on video cards .... That's $100 yer year averaged over time .... no more than the price of consoles assuming you buy the next gen ones within a year or two of when they come out ...
Oh the irony. This forum's video card section is loaded with the people you are talking about.
I don't see a big problem with PC gaming prices. I paid something like $1500 for my computer about 2 years ago I'm still amazed at how good it runs. Have you played Gears of War at 1080p? That is the most amazing game I have ever seen. IMO it even looks nicer than Crysis (smoother), and I'm able to run that at maximum quality on a single 8800GTX video card (it cost about as much as a Playstation 3 when I bought it).
That's true for almost every generation. The original Xbox was something like a Celeron 700 with a GeForce 3 video card. The Xbox 360 is a 3-core CPU at 3.2GHz and a X1800 video card; it's several times faster than the previous generation. The first Xbox was also that incredible when it came out, it could even run Doom 3. I remember the N64 being hyped a lot because it had arcade graphics at the time. The Sega Genesis boasted about arcade graphics in the commercials, and it was true.
Game consoles are usually pretty fast when they hit the market. They only start to look crappy in that limbo period just before a new console comes out.
New products have always been coming out. It's been that way in electronics for ever. Just because something better comes out, doesn't make what you have run any worse.
Buy what you need to play games and stick with it until new games no longer run well. Don't try to always have the best system that can be built. PC gaming isn't expensive, unless you're trying to overcompensate.
Post is an Epic Fail.
Buy what you need to play games and stick with it until new games no longer run well. Don't try to always have the best system that can be built. PC gaming isn't expensive, unless you're trying to overcompensate.
Post is an Epic Fail.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
"an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected."
Anandtech is a hardware forum filled with people who hate hardware enthusiasts.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,297
- 2,000
- 126
Do what I do, stay one or two generations behind on the games. The hot games right now are going to be exactly as good one year from now and they'll be exactly as good two years from now. By that time they'll be dirt cheap and they'll run on dirt cheap technology. There is absolutely no reason to get stuck on the treadmill of constantly upgrading hardware to get better frame rates on brand new games. If you allow yourself to be jerked around like that you're a dumbass. PC Gaming isn't the problem, idiot gamers are.
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
The video forum is loaded with people who upgrade their hardware more often than they play games. Just look at the hilarious PhysX advertising going on there. Totally disconnected from people who actually enjoy playing games as opposed to those who run them for benchmarks.
think of it this way
if your console could be upgraded, there would be upgrades available because many companies could make money on the niche market just like they do for PC with high end gamers. games for consoles would then offer options to increase graphics to use the upgradable hardware just as there is with PC right? but those who didnt upgrade couldnt use those settings.
same with PC. you dont have to upgrade but you can use its predefined settings or lower them. many PC games configure itself and run fine but the problem comes when users think its not good enough because...and only cause the higher options exist and everyone naturally wants to see them. so if the game automatically limits users based on thier hardware...gamers hack them using hacks/commandlines..etc. then they complain cause it runs at 10fps.
if a PC game is futureproofed for hardware not available yet (crysis comes to mind)...users complain cause they keep trying to use its max on unintended hardware.
the same would hold true if consoles could be upgradeable. since they arnt...thank god... then were simply stuck with lower settings than what they could otherwise have and cant change them.
Even Crysis can play on older hardware that was once high end years ago...no different than consoles.
solution is simple....pretend your PC is like a console and stop trying to max out resolution and every option under the sun. hardware requirement life on the PC can last about as long as a console.
a console is high end at first. so buy high end PC gear and you can get 4-5 years from most games
if your console could be upgraded, there would be upgrades available because many companies could make money on the niche market just like they do for PC with high end gamers. games for consoles would then offer options to increase graphics to use the upgradable hardware just as there is with PC right? but those who didnt upgrade couldnt use those settings.
same with PC. you dont have to upgrade but you can use its predefined settings or lower them. many PC games configure itself and run fine but the problem comes when users think its not good enough because...and only cause the higher options exist and everyone naturally wants to see them. so if the game automatically limits users based on thier hardware...gamers hack them using hacks/commandlines..etc. then they complain cause it runs at 10fps.
if a PC game is futureproofed for hardware not available yet (crysis comes to mind)...users complain cause they keep trying to use its max on unintended hardware.
the same would hold true if consoles could be upgradeable. since they arnt...thank god... then were simply stuck with lower settings than what they could otherwise have and cant change them.
Even Crysis can play on older hardware that was once high end years ago...no different than consoles.
solution is simple....pretend your PC is like a console and stop trying to max out resolution and every option under the sun. hardware requirement life on the PC can last about as long as a console.
a console is high end at first. so buy high end PC gear and you can get 4-5 years from most games
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
While you don't need to buy new hardware every 3-6 months to play current games, I'm tired of people claiming that they spent $400 on a computer and play all the new games at max settings just fine. Sorry, but if your definition of "just fine" is 5 frames per second then sure... but if you care anything about the gaming experience, you'll need to spend more than $400 to play all the newest games.
So what you're saying is that you would never own a PC if you were not playing PC games? If that's what you're saying, then you have a valid point. For the rest of us in first world countries, we need a computer if we want to apply for jobs or get better than an F- when doing a school report. The only thing differentiating your office/school computer from a gaming computer is a $250 video card.
Since the average life of a PC is roughly 3 years, and a 3 year old PC can almost always play new games, the cost of playing PC games is equal to the cost of video card(s). I must be a schizo or something since I replace video cards pretty often, so I would put the cost of PC gaming at maybe $400-500 every 3 years.
If you have, say an 8800GT or better, chances are you can play any game out today with better quality than a 360 or ps3 can offer. this doesn't necessarily mean max settings, but 360 and ps3 games don't have fantastic graphics when compared to top pc games, even on med-high settings. especially when you consider that many 360 and ps3 games run at a lower resolution.
for example, mass effect on the 360 runs at 720p (NOT 1080). this goes for many other games as well (like h3, gta4, etc). on the other hand, many pc users with 2yr old graphics can easily run mass effect at 1680x1050 with ease on max settings. fact is, just because you can't play a pc game on max, doesn't mean the quality is worse than a 360/ps3, because those DEFINITELY DO NOT run at the games maximum quality.
also mouse + kb > all
also pc = quake, starcraft, cs
ps3 cost = $400/10yrs (life cycle ~10?)
pc upgrades = ~$800/10yrs
$400 more for an immensely better experience.
also consider that everyone needs a basic pc to do anything, so add $400 to the ps3 cost.
non-gaming pc + ps3 = ~$800/10yr
gaming pc = ~$800/10yr
i'll stick to pc, thank you
for example, mass effect on the 360 runs at 720p (NOT 1080). this goes for many other games as well (like h3, gta4, etc). on the other hand, many pc users with 2yr old graphics can easily run mass effect at 1680x1050 with ease on max settings. fact is, just because you can't play a pc game on max, doesn't mean the quality is worse than a 360/ps3, because those DEFINITELY DO NOT run at the games maximum quality.
also mouse + kb > all
also pc = quake, starcraft, cs
ps3 cost = $400/10yrs (life cycle ~10?)
pc upgrades = ~$800/10yrs
$400 more for an immensely better experience.
also consider that everyone needs a basic pc to do anything, so add $400 to the ps3 cost.
non-gaming pc + ps3 = ~$800/10yr
gaming pc = ~$800/10yr
i'll stick to pc, thank you
I think you're underestimating the base cost of the PC. My dad, who doesn't play PC games at all, has gone through 3 computers in the past 10 years. He had a Celeron 500, it sucked, it was replaced with an Athlon 2400. That thing fried this summer so he now has an E2200. The Celeron and E2200 computers were about $500 each. The Athlon was actually a pretty expensive computer, about $1000, and that's why it lasted so long. Over the past 10 years of not-gaming, he has spent $2000 on computers.
If he put a $200-300 video card in each computer, that would work fairly ok for playing games over the past 10 years. If he played consoles, he could get a PS1 in 1998 for something like $150 (I think that's what I paid for mine that year). PS2 was really damn expensive when it came out, but it could be counted as $200 if you're willing to wait a year or two before buying it. PS3 right now is 2 years old and costs $400. Overall, PC and consoles are about the same price. Consoles are more expensive if you buy them as soon as they come out (PS3 was twice as expensive when it first came out), and PC gaming gets damn expensive if you upgrade too often.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter