Switch from Console to PC gaming? NPR wants to hear from you...

[GTaudiophile]

So did anyone write NPR or not?

 

[Phoenix86]

yes, but by the same token most people already have a computer so the only added hardware expense is usually a graphics card. for 1080p gaming a $200 card plays most games more than fine.

$200 would be the bare minimum, most people need more RAM and perhaps a bit more processing power. If you took a stock PC and upgraded it to do gaming, it'd be RAM+GPU.

 

[BikeJunkie]

I can't say I've ever really understood the cost argument when it comes to PC vs. console gaming. You can keep them pretty level with each other. Plenty of budget video cards available that will still knock the snot out of a console. My gaming PC cost me $1000 and I can also do tons of other crap on it. If I had just put together a non-gaming PC for me to do tons of other crap, it would have saved me a couple hundred bucks.

I mostly play on consoles, oddly, because I'm a badass in FPS games with a controller. I suck with kbm.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I mostly play on consoles, oddly, because I'm a badass in FPS games with a controller. I suck with kbm.

There's only one way to learn, and that's to give up and go back to what you know.

 

[BikeJunkie]

True. I've been on the fence about refreshing my rig for BF4...

 

[JamesV]

I got a 360 around the time GTA 4 came out, and I played on it heavily for a couple of years, but then I ditched it, to go back to PC gaming.

PC gaming is FAR cheaper than consoles, if you buy a lot of games like I do (4-8 per month, 20+ damn Steam sales). When I bought Tomb Raider on Steam for $7.50, it was still $39.99+ on all consoles; one example, but over 50+ games a year, it makes a HUGE difference.

 

[IronWing]

I guess this kind of story is much cheaper to produce than reporting news.

 

[Imaginer]

I got a 360 around the time GTA 4 came out, and I played on it heavily for a couple of years, but then I ditched it, to go back to PC gaming.

PC gaming is FAR cheaper than consoles, if you buy a lot of games like I do (4-8 per month, 20+ damn Steam sales). When I bought Tomb Raider on Steam for $7.50, it was still $39.99+ on all consoles; one example, but over 50+ games a year, it makes a HUGE difference.

To give a rough idea on software game costs, my Steam library over time with actual dollars I spent is $1200. Steam calculators of my library at current pricing is $2300. If I average my library at console pricing average of $40, or heck even $30, it works to over $4500. My library is shy above 150 games.

 

[JTsyo]

yes, but by the same token most people already have a computer so the only added hardware expense is usually a graphics card. for 1080p gaming a $200 card plays most games more than fine.

I think this would be the right way to calculate the cost for PC gaming, the price difference between a gaming rig and generic PC. So say you spend an extra $100 for your CPU, $60 for RAM and $200 for a graphics card. That puts you at $360. That's comparable to consoles. What the PC does offer though is a huge library. Even if you build a generic PC, there would be thousands of games available that would be playable on it.

 

[AViking]

Not much to say except that consoles pretty much suck. The control suck. The graphics suck. The entire experience sucks.

 

[nageov3t]

personally, I go back and forth.

I actually enjoy the experience of gaming on a console more (excepting for MMO's), but it seems like the type of games that I enjoy tend to get released more on PC (RPG's, strategy games, MMO's)

 

[PliotronX]

I guess this kind of story is much cheaper to produce than reporting news.

That's NPR for ya.

 

[Freejack2]

Hardwarewise a computer that doesn't need gaming capabilities is going to be cheaper. A basic $300 system will do just fine then.
However a PS4 console and even a basic $150 tv is going to be $550.
$850 combined buys a pretty nice gaming system.

On the plus side PCs are upgradeable and games can be modded more easily. Also in my opinion it's easier to play a game on the pc than it is on a console.

However the caveat is developers will often develop first for the console then maybe port it to the pc.
Some games don't even make it to the pc such as Red Dead Redemption. Other games like the GTA series are many months before they get to pc.

 

[AViking]

GF wanted to get a console so we had something extra to do this winter. Looked at prices and quickly realized it made zero sense. Networked our computers together old school style instead.

 

[ThinClient]

Do you only use a gaming computer for gaming, or do you also use it as your every day browser/streaming video/e-mail/word/excel computer?

You have to factor in the multi-use aspects of each, the TV and the computer.

Gaming computers cost $3-600 more than an every day use computer, which is very close to the cost of the console.

You can't upgrade a console. When the console is released, the hardware inside is already 1-2 years old and you can't upgrade any of that.

Purposefully designing each generation not to be backwards compatible is just a way to pad Sony's or Microsoft's pockets.

I can do literally everything on my PC that any console claims it can do or that any console claims will be able to do.

Why should I bother with a console?

 

[ThinClient]

So did anyone write NPR or not?

I did, at length.

 

[ThinClient]

I guess this kind of story is much cheaper to produce than reporting news.

yes, news should be limited to stupid boring political pundits throwing partisanship and blame at each other, that's the only kind of news that's worthy of print

 

[Phoenix86]

You can't upgrade a console. When the console is released, the hardware inside is already 1-2 years old and you can't upgrade any of that.

Purposefully designing each generation not to be backwards compatible is just a way to pad Sony's or Microsoft's pockets.

I can do literally everything on my PC that any console claims it can do or that any console claims will be able to do.

Why should I bother with a console?

I wasn't arguing for either, just making a fair comparison. I prefer PC, but that's not really relevant.

The flip side to your argument is you have to upgrade a PC ~ every 2 years to play current games.

 

[JTsyo]

You can't upgrade a console. When the console is released, the hardware inside is already 1-2 years old and you can't upgrade any of that.

Purposefully designing each generation not to be backwards compatible is just a way to pad Sony's or Microsoft's pockets.

I can do literally everything on my PC that any console claims it can do or that any console claims will be able to do.

Why should I bother with a console?

You can replace the HDD in the PS3 and 4 with a SSD.

 

[CZroe]

I wasn't arguing for either, just making a fair comparison. I prefer PC, but that's not really relevant.

The flip side to your argument is you have to upgrade a PC ~ every 2 years to play current games.

Not really. A high-end gaming PC in 2007 that could out-class a $600 console could still play any watered-down console port made today from those same consoles, though they probably aren't as optimized and may look worse than they should for acceptable performance. A dual 8800GT SLi setup can still play the latest Call of Duty as well as the 2006 consoles at comparable resolutions. Also, upgrades for such an old system are dirt cheap.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

PC... because for FPS, Mouse + KB > *

 

[natto fire]

99% of PC gamers have a couch and tv so it absolutely does not make sense to consider those as part of the price of the console. Do you consider a flight to LA $25k because the ticket is $400 and the car $24.6k?

Unless a person has extra console specific hardware it is much cheaper than PC gaming.

That is just the hardware, which I think is slightly debatable. On the software side, PC gaming runs away with the value title. I cringe to think what my Steam library would have cost if they even averaged $30 a game, much less $60. Many multi-platform games such as Minecraft, and Dungeon defenders, the PC versions offer much more content and moddability.

The hardware is such a good value on the consoles because they know they are going to make it back selling software and accessories.

The TV thing is stupid on both sides of the debate because monitors and TVs are pretty much interchangeable at 1080p resolutions.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I always find it interesting when people compare prices of consoles and pc's. It is always apparent who has a clue about hardware costs and abilities and those who are speaking out thier asses.

PC's are not expensive anymore.

Hardware doesn't need to be upgraded and replaced every 6 months (or even every year or every other year, etc) any more to keep up. Those that do, do so because they want to, not because they have to.

PC's are used for much more than gaming, therefore some of the cost is deferred by the nature of it. Consoles are now also adding abilities (value) into them as well, but the difference is those are abilities are limited by the manufacturers whim and can be taken away at any time (we see this a lot actually). PC's do not have that limitation.

Steam has made PC games cheap. Recently, consoles are slowly starting to follow suit, but they have a long way to go (looking at you Nintendo). Add to that mods, fan made fixes/patches (that devs are sometimes too lazy to fix themselves), and all the other freedom that comes with a game being on PC, adds additional value.

Today's tech allows you to easily hook your computer to a TV and sound system and use it comfortably from your couch. I've been doing it for years. Why this is even a misconception is beyond me.

That being said, I like both consoles and PC's for different reasons. What I don't like is the 7-10 year spread of consoles trying to control the gaming industry and where games are released and the half assed money grab attempted ports that PC's have been seeing since 360/PS3 came into being.

 

[Phoenix86]

Not really. A high-end gaming PC in 2007 that could out-class a $600 console could still play any watered-down console port made today from those same consoles, though they probably aren't as optimized and may look worse than they should for acceptable performance. A dual 8800GT SLi setup can still play the latest Call of Duty as well as the 2006 consoles at comparable resolutions. Also, upgrades for such an old system are dirt cheap.

Dual sli setups aren't exactly apples and apples comparison, we were talking about system that cost about the same as a console. Gaming functions on top of a PC vs a console. You're talking about a system spec'd for double that price range. If you want to compare it vs 2006 consoles at similar resolution you're talking about the typical bare bones gaming system with a single mid range video card. Let me know how BF4 runs on such a system...

 

[biostud]

So did anyone write NPR or not?

Probably not, they all want to discuss it here on ATOT instead