Question for PC gamers...

[Subyman]

ROI on a hobby? You crazy? Hobbies are the definition of money pit. I get an upgrade itch and scratch it from time to time. I've never had buyer's remorse on any of it and I certainly do not compare it to consoles or whatever.

 

[Anteaus]

ROI on a hobby? You crazy? Hobbies are the definition of money pit. I get an upgrade itch and scratch it from time to time. I've never had buyer's remorse on any of it and I certainly do not compare it to consoles or whatever.

You know, when I commented on the OP's post I didn't even consider the ROI he/she mentioned. The word investment shouldn't be anywhere near this conversion haha. Good catch.

If someone ends up with buyer's remorse, it's a sign that they shouldn't be spending that money on gaming in the first place. Disposable income is the name of the game.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree that the increase in system requirements and general poor performance of "next gen" console ports negtively impacts the value proposition of PC gaming, especially if one demands 60FPS. This is pretty much the opposite of what a lot of people were expecting, since both are now x86. But now it is just too easy to port from console to PC without making the game take advantages of the PC. So it is pretty much the same situation, devs dont really give a crap about PC gamers and still devote the minimum amount of effort they can get away with to make a game run on PC. To illustrate this, you only have to look at the total crap controls for PC of DA:I.

That said, I still game only on PC. This is pretty much due to the wider selection of games, and to the cheap games on steam. I also am much more comfortable with a mouse/keyboard than a controller. I have pretty much decided to give up recent AAA games, simply because most of them are just a re-hash of previous games, and because of the ridiculous specs needed to run them.

IMO, all the console fans who said the X86 consoles would usher in a new golden age of PC gaming, have been proven wrong. All we have gotten is the same old games, with somewhat better graphics, and hugely inflated system requirements. Even DA:I, probably one of the more optimized "next gen" ports is basically the same game as DA:O. Does it look better, yes, especially if you have top end hardware. Does it have more content, yes I think so. But is it a better game? I dont think so. In fact the more I play it, the more I wish for the more cohesive story of DA:O, plus I want the freaking hotbar slots back and a healing mage!!

In any case, PC gaming was making a very good renaissance due to Steam and associated digital distribution platforms. I really fear that the new consoles, instead of reinforcing this trend are going to deter a lot of new gamers away from PC, due to the crappy performance and insanely high system requirements. I hope all those who were clamoring for more demanding PC requirements are happy. They certainly got what they wanted. Whether the improvement in gameplay and graphics is worth it is much more open to debate.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You know, when I commented on the OP's post I didn't even consider the ROI he/she mentioned. The word investment shouldn't be anywhere near this conversion haha. Good catch.

If someone ends up with buyer's remorse, it's a sign that they shouldn't be spending that money on gaming in the first place. Disposable income is the name of the game.

Well, he may have not stated it properly, but I see his point. Most people have only a certain amount of disposable income, so they must still decide how to allocate that income to get the most enjoyment from it(sort of the same concept as ROI). I think the outrageous system requirements of the new PC ports do make a PC much harder to justify for gaming instead of a console from this point of view.

Edit: Also the rise of cheap tablets and laptops means a lot fewer consumers are buying desktops that can be easily upgraded to a decent gaming experience.

 

[Martimus]

And first let me say that I myself am a PC gamer...

But do you start asking yourself "Am I crazy for wanting/needing to buy a new $350 GPU just so that I can play the newest game when the (game) looks and plays pretty darn good on a console that costs about the same as my video card alone?"

Do you ever begin to question your ROI?

I mean when you look at games like Borderlands you realize that TOP END graphics are NOT a requirement for a game to be fun. Would Dragon Age: Inquisition be any LESS fun with Borderland style graphics...?

And I KNOW you can do so much more than play games on your PC but do you think there might be a MIDDLE GROUND device at a price point between the CONSOLE ($395) and a nice gaming rig ($1300) some day?

If they would come out with a quality, reliable mouse and game pad (WSAD, Run, Jump keys) for consoles, I would be VERY tempted...

I don't know, I just feel there comes a point where FPS and shadows begin...over shadowing...the FUN of gaming.

Hope to hear your thoughts...

Thanks!

I'm going to have a computer regardless, so the full price of it isn't really the difference. The true price is the difference between the price of the computer components I would buy if I didn't play video games (ie video card in my case), versus the cost of a console. In this case, the video card is cheaper than a console, so the hardware doesn't seem to be a poor investment for me.

 

[bystander36]

I agree that the increase in system requirements and general poor performance of "next gen" console ports negtively impacts the value proposition of PC gaming, especially if one demands 60FPS. This is pretty much the opposite of what a lot of people were expecting, since both are now x86. But now it is just too easy to port from console to PC without making the game take advantages of the PC. So it is pretty much the same situation, devs dont really give a crap about PC gamers and still devote the minimum amount of effort they can get away with to make a game run on PC. To illustrate this, you only have to look at the total crap controls for PC of DA:I.

This is exactly what I predicted would happen. I know others didn't, but before, when they ported, they were forced to spend time to port it, and if you had to rebuild the game engine for the PC, you might as well make it work well for the PC at the same time. Now they don't have to change much, so they just give us the console version.

 

[bystander36]

Seems like you missed the entire point of my post.

Yes, you could though. Turn down some settings and play. You don't have to play at 1080p, 2xMSAA, ULTRA settings.

This is what I would have said. You don't have to game at max settings for the game to be fun or look good. I haven't upgraded in 3 years, and still play DA:I on high settings, with Ultra textures and medium tessellation. It runs at well over 60 FPS and looks good.

I'm not sure when the change came, but for some reason, the forum goes have stopped considering lower settings. PC games are designed around the idea of self optimizing for your system. That is why there are Ultra settings, medium and low settings available. It is so you don't have to upgrade, and if you have an over kill system, there are settings you can use to take advantage of that.

 

[tential]

If you got into PC gaming to save money, you are doing it wrong.

 

[BSim500]

This is pretty much the opposite of what a lot of people were expecting, since both are now x86. But now it is just too easy to port from console to PC without making the game take advantages of the PC. So it is pretty much the same situation, devs dont really give a crap about PC gamers and still devote the minimum amount of effort they can get away with to make a game run on PC. To illustrate this, you only have to look at the total crap controls for PC of DA:I.

This is exactly what I predicted would happen. I know others didn't, but before, when they ported, they were forced to spend time to port it, and if you had to rebuild the game engine for the PC, you might as well make it work well for the PC at the same time. Now they don't have to change much, so they just give us the console version.

Agreed 100%. When porting becomes a "no brainer", you end up with an increase of brainless ports...

 

[frozentundra123456]

I'm going to have a computer regardless, so the full price of it isn't really the difference. The true price is the difference between the price of the computer components I would buy if I didn't play video games (ie video card in my case), versus the cost of a console. In this case, the video card is cheaper than a console, so the hardware doesn't seem to be a poor investment for me.

That is true, but the difference in price between an entry level PC (or cheap tablet) and one that can be used for gaming has become quite large, due to increasing cheap entry level PCs and the need for a quad core to run newer games.

For instance you can now get a 200 dollar atom laptop that is adequate (barely) for what most people do on their PCs. But in order to play the new ports well, it probably costs at least 700.00. So in actual fact the "variable cost" of a gaming PC is around 500.00.

 

[Spungo]

And first let me say that I myself am a PC gamer...

But do you start asking yourself "Am I crazy for wanting/needing to buy a new $350 GPU just so that I can play the newest game when the (game) looks and plays pretty darn good on a console that costs about the same as my video card alone?"

Do you ever begin to question your ROI?

I did. Then I checked Newegg and Amazon to see what console games cost. Now I have no regrets. I'm certain I made a reasonably good choice.
Computers have very expensive hardware. Consoles have very expensive software.
Wolfenstein New Order, boxed PC and console versions: $60
What I paid on Steam: $23.
On top of that, I know this game will work in 10 years. Even if steam stops working, I can always find a pirated copy online and play that. I actually do play a lot of older games, so that's a real concern.

Some other hidden console costs that anger me more than they should:
-game controllers are super expensive for no reason
-it cost money to play online??
-DLC. If you wait a year, you'll find stuff on steam that cost $20 or less and include all of the DLC. Borderlands 2 on Steam came all of the DLC and I'm pretty sure I paid very little for it.

That is true, but the difference in price between an entry level PC (or cheap tablet) and one that can be used for gaming has become quite large, due to increasing cheap entry level PCs and the need for a quad core to run newer games.

It's always been large. Computer that can do word processing would cost $500. Gaming computer would cost $500. Now that's more like $300 vs $800. It's still huge. It's always huge.

 

[Rakehellion]

And first let me say that I myself am a PC gamer...

But do you start asking yourself "Am I crazy for wanting/needing to buy a new $350 GPU just so that I can play the newest game when the (game) looks and plays pretty darn good on a console that costs about the same as my video card alone?"

Do you ever begin to question your ROI?

I mean when you look at games like Borderlands you realize that TOP END graphics are NOT a requirement for a game to be fun. Would Dragon Age: Inquisition be any LESS fun with Borderland style graphics...?

And I KNOW you can do so much more than play games on your PC but do you think there might be a MIDDLE GROUND device at a price point between the CONSOLE ($395) and a nice gaming rig ($1300) some day?

If they would come out with a quality, reliable mouse and game pad (WSAD, Run, Jump keys) for consoles, I would be VERY tempted...

I don't know, I just feel there comes a point where FPS and shadows begin...over shadowing...the FUN of gaming.

Hope to hear your thoughts...

Thanks!

I wouldn't pay more than $200 for a GPU. Beyond that you have rapidly declining value.

Everyone already has a computer, so you aren't paying much beyond the cost of a GPU to play games, so it's actually less expensive.

 

[escrow4]

My box was more than $1300. The GPU alone over here was $900. I don't consider $200 GPUs. If it isn't top end for $700+ I won't buy it. There has never been a "budget" gaming PC. Budget is console. They run at medium ish, why bother fiddling around with crappy parts to get what you'd get out of the box on a console?

And its about time specs went through the roof. If you have a quad let it be fully utilised.

 

[bystander36]

My box was more than $1300. The GPU alone over here was $900. I don't consider $200 GPUs. If it isn't top end for $700+ I won't buy it. There has never been a "budget" gaming PC. Budget is console. They run at medium ish, why bother fiddling around with crappy parts to get what you'd get out of the box on a console?

And its about time specs went through the roof. If you have a quad let it be fully utilised.

I'd say you are a little obsessive with your GPU's. For a 1/3 the price you can get 90% of the performance, unless you meant you have SLI/CF.

Still, there is a point that you get severe diminishing returns. Obviously there are going to be people who buy from all categories, but the $700+ category is much smaller than most. And there is plenty of reason to play on PC's with $200-$500 GPU's. Besides the low end of that reaches console appearance, you can play with a mouse and have much higher FPS.

 

[Spungo]

my box was more than $1300. The gpu alone over here was $900.

/atot

 

[DigDog]

large thread is large.

pc gaming and console gaming are not the same kind of gaming. which in turn means that they cannot be compared.

the fact that some games exist in both formats doesnt make them equal.
(in fact, some games are shite on one or the other format, because they were born to be played on the other)

yes occasionally you might get the same experience from both.

yes, consoles are cheaper... although PCs can run games cheaply, but most people here want the top end. people who chose to go for the more expensive entertainment get their money's worth, i assure you.

 

[futurefields]

for me its just that all the things i like about consoles doesn't exist anymore

now i have to install games, they are almost 50gb big, require patches to work right, has almost as many issues as the pc versions, its just a joke

consoles used to be you pop in a disc and can play, perfect for the working man

 

[sxr7171]

How do you figure that?

Controllers, accessories, live subscription etc. I still wouldn't say PC gaming is cheaper but we underestimate the real cost of console gaming.

 

[futurefields]

pure gaming > http://youtu.be/FPbd5yAzHXw

pure gaming > http://youtu.be/D3_nbdFlvAI

 

[ImpulsE69]

My box was more than $1300. The GPU alone over here was $900. I don't consider $200 GPUs. If it isn't top end for $700+ I won't buy it. There has never been a "budget" gaming PC. Budget is console. They run at medium ish, why bother fiddling around with crappy parts to get what you'd get out of the box on a console?

And its about time specs went through the roof. If you have a quad let it be fully utilised.

You sit on the extreme end. I would never pay $900 for a GPU, and my PC (going on 3 years old now) was only around $1k. I spent more on future capabilities than the immediate needs and it has worked out well. I can play pretty much any game to this day on at least high settings at 1080. If I so chose, I can upgrade my CPU, memory and GPU and still keep the majority of everything else. The other piece of this is that gaming isn't the only thing I do on it. It is a workhorse.

This is fine for most people who already have computers. It will be interesting to see if the Steam/PC game deals continue to hold up to consoles as they start to drop prices a bit more.

Ultimately though I look at it from a perspective of I'll always want a desktop, so there is no reason NOT to game on it. If a console comes out with games I like that I can't get on PC, I'll get a console...it's never been an either or scenario. The difference as of the last 2 gens though is that they have all the annoyances of PC's w/o any of the benefits (even more so this gen).

 

[escrow4]

I'd say you are a little obsessive with your GPU's. For a 1/3 the price you can get 90% of the performance, unless you meant you have SLI/CF.

Still, there is a point that you get severe diminishing returns. Obviously there are going to be people who buy from all categories, but the $700+ category is much smaller than most. And there is plenty of reason to play on PC's with $200-$500 GPU's. Besides the low end of that reaches console appearance, you can play with a mouse and have much higher FPS.

I want a 100% of the performance right now and next year if there is something at least 30% faster I'll chuck it and spend another $1K. I wouldn't SLI if you paid me to. Which reminds me, stupid Nvidia, hurry up with the 980 Ti.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'm not so picky about moving all of the quality sliders to the right, so I don't need to buy a new graphics card every year.

Cheaper list price (mostly) + Steam sales + Humble Bundles + not upgrading every year.

And that's even before considering mods. You just can't play Skyrim, Fallout / NV the same way on a console, they're gimped. Plus RPGs like Shadowrun, Wasteland 2, Divinity that will probably never make it to consoles.

I'm not one of the PC Master Race though. PC is my first choice but I also have a PS2, PS3, 360 and will buy a PS4 and/or X1 when there are enough exclusive games that I want to play.

 

[bystander36]

I bought a PS3 back when it was fairly new, but I never could get into it. I've just stuck with PC games, and plan to stick with it until PC gaming no longer exists.

 

[futurefields]

You just can't play Skyrim, Fallout / NV the same way on a console, they're gimped.

What are you talking about?

All those games did phenomenally well on Xbox 360, and you most certainly get the full experience the developer ever intended with those games. In fact, and I know I will get flamed for this, IMO in some ways Skyrim looks best on the 360, sitting on a couch with a 55" plasma. It hides the flaws, such as the low resolution shadows, while letting the beauty of the game world come through.

 

[taserbro]

What are you talking about?

All those games did phenomenally well on Xbox 360, and you most certainly get the full experience the developer ever intended with those games. In fact, and I know I will get flamed for this, IMO in some ways Skyrim looks best on the 360, sitting on a couch with a 55" plasma. It hides the flaws, such as the low resolution shadows, while letting the beauty of the game world come through.

Skyrim looks vastly different on PC than on console to me.

Personally, I have a PC because I need one to work on but it also happens to give me an excellent and unique gaming experience. Sure the graphics might not be as important as gameplay but with a console, I can't have a browser open with my work in the background while completing a hauling run on E: D using my warthog hotas, with a batch render running on idle cpu power and a twitch tv stream opened on my second screen all while I have my music playlist streaming from a nas on speakers and the other work related skype feed in my headphones.

When consoles can do all of that for 400 bucks, let me know.