Thinking about retiring from PC gaming and buying a PS4

[futurefields]

The same tired argument. There are many reasons console gaming can be superior.

1) Cost. A good GPU, your 680 for example cost $500 at launch. More expensive than a PS4 and one game and more expensive than the Forza or Titanfall Bundles for the XB1. Then you need to buy a PSU, CPU, Motherboard, case, cooling system, DVD or BD drive, a HDD (SSD is much more expensive an option). So by the time you are done you'll be lucky to have under $1000 spent for something that will actually play the games on settings that look better than PS4/XB1. If you want to keep up in the coming years you need to reinvest in new hardware with a PC.
2) Online community. There are more people playing a singular title on console than PC. The online community for some games on PC is pretty low. CoD for example. People like to hate on that game but it has a huge following. There are simply more people playing it on consoles.
3) ease of entry. It is easier for someone to buy a console and plug it in than it is to figure out what exactly they need or want in a PC. Then you have drivers to update and vsync and other settings to learn the purpose of.
4) No extra software needed. A console has everything it needs to play games. With a PC you need extra software in Steam, Origin, uPlay. Then you have all the problems with origin and uplay(although I haven't had any problems myself). Sometimes preventing you from even playing.
5) Resolution isn't everything. People like to say "I can run at 1440p and use three monitors on my PC" That's fine but look, I have to run SLI to use 1440p with any sort of playability. Then if you want to run mods, tons of AA, turn on all the graphics effects and still run 1440p, you end up with a very low framerate unless you have the proper investment in the hardware. So what's the point of touting resolution if you are going to just turn all those effects and such off so it looks worse?

These arguments and blatant trolling is why I've moved away from PC gaming lately. The elitism is getting old and the arguments stale. I share some of the same sentiments, but the way you present them just don't work if you are trying to actually have a conversation. It's more like a kid on the playground when someone gets a new toy "Mine is still better!"

The OP's reasoning is spot on. No need to upgrade later to keep up, games optimized for the hardware. Plus there will be lots of games that never ever come to PC while games that were once considered PC only are coming to consoles.

So, you think consoles have an superior online community to PC and cite Call of Duty as the reason.

Heh.

Please stick to console gaming.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So, you think consoles have an superior online community to PC and cite Call of Duty as the reason.

Heh.

Please stick to console gaming.

I gave one example...I'd say Titanfall too. The community on console is much bigger.

Fighting games...pick one and there are more people on console. See again you guys only pick out small insignificant details and completely ignore the context of what is being discussed to troll around and try to downplay consoles. You must really feel superior to have to keep trying to say so.

So I say please learn how to make an argument that isn't like 5 year old. It's extremely humorous to see you squirm trying to make an argument and resort to "please stick to console gaming" when clearly I have a PC built for gaming and admit to playing games on my PC. Clearly SLI video cards mean nothing here.

 

[zerocool84]

More people play console games, more games are always sold on console, ifso factso, the multiplayer communities are going to be larger on console than on PC for a particular game.

 

[HeXen]

I don't care how large the communities are, larger usually means more childish crap, though console MP games do have online players for a very long time where on PC they die quickly if their not BF or COD. but I do like that on consoles people actually use headsets and speak...at least in the past from my experience, I have not tried MP on PS4..... and it's nice to talk to your friends while you game. The very few people I knew that played MP games on PC never bothered to use a mic, dunno why that always seems to be the case.
On console just listening to people sometimes made for some hilarious entertainment.

All the years of playing BF2, 2142, 3 and 4, UT series, Crysis, Tribes or any other PC MP game...no one ever makes use of VOIP, few even seem to use the commands if available.
I don't know what it's like now, I don't really care to play MP anymore, don't even have PS plus and see little reason to get it.

 

[zerocool84]

I don't care how large the communities are, larger usually means more childish crap, though console MP games do have online players for a very long time where on PC they die quickly if their not BF or COD. but I do like that on consoles people actually use headsets and speak...at least in the past from my experience, I have not tried MP on PS4..... and it's nice to talk to your friends while you game. The very few people I knew that played MP games on PC never bothered to use a mic, dunno why that always seems to be the case.
On console just listening to people sometimes made for some hilarious entertainment.

All the years of playing BF2, 2142, 3 and 4, UT series, Crysis, Tribes or any other PC MP game...no one ever makes use of VOIP, few even seem to use the commands if available.
I don't know what it's like now, I don't really care to play MP anymore, don't even have PS plus and see little reason to get it.

I played Counterstrike for a ton of years, most people used headsets on that.

 

[BrightCandle]

There are way more games sold on PC. For most of the big console games the PC is similar on volume to both the PS3 and xbox 360 (or now the PS4 and XB1) combined. Its community however is not split onto different machines. For the grand majority of games you'll find a lot more players online on PC than on a console. There has been this myth for a long time that consoles outsell PCs but the recent data tells us that is rarely true.

Personally I can't see where the article the OP read was coming from, if you already own a PC that is faster than a console it seems daft to buy a console (extra cost) and pay more for WatchDogs to play with worse graphics. This is going to be a huge PC title without a doubt.

I can understand someone who doesn't have either choosing between a console at $400 and a PC at $600 (about the same performance) and then deciding based on the volume of games they play the console will end up cheaper, but that $30 v $50 different in game price adds up quick for a regular gamer with a lot of games, and that ignores the ludicrously cheap sales that PCs get that consoles don't. Its only really ever cheaper to buy a console if you don't buy very many games, it suits a particular audience very well and I own them purely for the exclusives that I want to play. But if you were buying 10 games a year then a PC, even with upgrades will end up quite a bit cheaper and be faster as well.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The same tired argument. There are many reasons console gaming can be superior.

...

The OP's reasoning is spot on. No need to upgrade later to keep up, games optimized for the hardware. Plus there will be lots of games that never ever come to PC while games that were once considered PC only are coming to consoles.

You seem to be ignoring that the OP already has a gaming PC with a GTX 680

In that context moving to a PS4 is silly because it is a major step downwards in gaming power. The fact that you can't run some new game on that PC in "ultra" settings doesn't mean it will run better on a half-as-fast PS4. The "pretty good" settings for that game should still offer better visual quality and frame rates.

As I said, I own a PS3 and 360, and have enjoyed games on them.

It's just a fact that a $1,000+ PC is going to render games better than a $400 console, and the OP already owns that PC.

(bold!)

 

[chimaxi83]

You seem to be ignoring that the OP already has a gaming PC with a GTX 680

In that context moving to a PS4 is silly because it is a major step downwards in gaming power. The fact that you can't run some new game on that PC in "ultra" settings doesn't mean it will run better on a half-as-fast PS4. The "pretty good" settings for that game should still offer better visual quality and frame rates.

As I said, I own a PS3 and 360, and have enjoyed games on them.

It's just a fact that a $1,000+ PC is going to render games better than a $400 console, and the OP already owns that PC.

(bold!)

Comparing specs between a PC and a console to try and make your point? That doesn't really make sense. I have a semi high powered PC, as well as a PS4, and I can't really tell much difference between the two anymore. There will be exceptions that will most likely be a better experience on PC (The Witcher 3, BF4, for example), but overall, they're pretty equal. The vast majority of gamers are better served by the ease of use of a console anyway.

Comparing cost and hardware between consoles and PCs is just stupid and pointless, in my opinion. For people who aren't just specs sticklers who have nothing better to do than infest this forum with X versus Y arguments all day, console specs mean absolutely nothing.

 

[HeXen]

I played Counterstrike for a ton of years, most people used headsets on that.

Why would so many use VOIP in that and few in so many other MP games? Never played it myself. I know America's Army seemed popular for a while too but again never heard anyone speak and that game was free.

Personally I can't see where the article the OP read was coming from, if you already own a PC that is faster than a console it seems daft to buy a console (extra cost) and pay more for WatchDogs to play with worse graphics. This is going to be a huge PC title without a doubt.

The daft part is making assumptions about how good the game will run on PC when it's not out yet. What we do know is that to look as good or better on PC will require more powerful hardware than console. On PC, nothing is guaranteed.

For me personally I have GTX 680/Core i7 as well but I'll get the PS4 version for 2 reasons. One is I can rent it, borrow it from a friend or sell it. Two is because I want a streamlined experience, from boot to game, I just want to play seamlessly.

Just not a fan giant towers with loud whirring fans (680 alone is 3x's louder than my PS4) And not a fan of going through Windows UI, then through Steams UI, then through Uplay's UI, signing into everything and I can't go from boot to game to shutdown just with a gamepad alone without getting up...call me a lazy gamer but it's so relaxing to just slouch back, grab the pad and turn on/off my console which also does the TV too, even work an onscreen KB if need be, all without touching another thing.

Comparing specs between a PC and a console to try and make your point? That doesn't really make sense. I have a semi high powered PC, as well as a PS4, and I can't really tell much difference between the two anymore. There will be exceptions that will most likely be a better experience on PC (The Witcher 3, BF4, for example), but overall, they're pretty equal. The vast majority of gamers are better served by the ease of use of a console anyway.

Comparing cost and hardware between consoles and PCs is just stupid and pointless, in my opinion. For people who aren't just specs sticklers who have nothing better to do than infest this forum with X versus Y arguments all day, console specs mean absolutely nothing.

I bet you can hear a huge difference without seeing a huge box or tower taking up half your space too. At least that's the only real difference I notice. Eventually PC games will start to offer more graphically than just some AA/AF that it does now but a tiny and quiet box is certainly a breath of fresh air.

I even have a stealth Fractal Design case with quiet fans and sound damping and not one fan in that thing is as quiet as the PS4.

 

[zerocool84]

There are way more games sold on PC. For most of the big console games the PC is similar on volume to both the PS3 and xbox 360 (or now the PS4 and XB1) combined. Its community however is not split onto different machines. For the grand majority of games you'll find a lot more players online on PC than on a console. There has been this myth for a long time that consoles outsell PCs but the recent data tells us that is rarely true.

Personally I can't see where the article the OP read was coming from, if you already own a PC that is faster than a console it seems daft to buy a console (extra cost) and pay more for WatchDogs to play with worse graphics. This is going to be a huge PC title without a doubt.

I can understand someone who doesn't have either choosing between a console at $400 and a PC at $600 (about the same performance) and then deciding based on the volume of games they play the console will end up cheaper, but that $30 v $50 different in game price adds up quick for a regular gamer with a lot of games, and that ignores the ludicrously cheap sales that PCs get that consoles don't. Its only really ever cheaper to buy a console if you don't buy very many games, it suits a particular audience very well and I own them purely for the exclusives that I want to play. But if you were buying 10 games a year then a PC, even with upgrades will end up quite a bit cheaper and be faster as well.

Of course there are more games in general sold on PC because there are so many no name games released on PC but PC is rarely the top platform sold for a particular game.

 

[HeXen]

My only disappointment with the PS4 is lack of G27 wheel support. It's pretty clear that it's likely never going to happen. So I am considering picking up Project Cars or Asseto Corsa on PC just to use it but not sure which one will be better or if I'll even get into them much. Though Project Cars isn't on Steam, I don't like segregating my library.

Of course there are more games in general sold on PC because there are so many no name games released on PC but PC is rarely the top platform sold for a particular game.

Agree although PC has more genres but again it's kinda like the old Atari games, there's just so much junk it's harder to sort through to find the gems.

Just look at Steam's store. I see featured. Might and Magic, Breach and Clearn, Kerbal space program, Starbound, Broforce, ShadowRun, Planet Explorers....etc.
Steam is overloaded in Indie games, some in beta/alpha...not a bad thing, but picking out what you would really like has just got harder. If you're big into RTS and Adventure games even, you still have to sort through some crap and many don't seem to offer a demo. On PS4 if there is no demo, I can usually run down to Redbox or Family Video and rent it for $2 first.

Theres not 1 game featured anywhere on Steams front page that I would care about let alone play. I mean Overcast: Walden and the Werewolf? WTF? Is it fun? dunno, doesn't seem to be a demo and the screenshots are so dark I can't tell wtf it is other than reminds me of Amnesia or something.

 

[Arkaign]

If you're going to drop PC gaming, then you should sell that 680 and replace it with a 750 (non-ti) or something, and pocket the $$ for console stuff.

I'm in the 'both' camp though. Watch Dogs is a terrible title to pick console for if you have an i7 + 680 though.

Nvidia PC Watch Dogs w/HBAO should look godly : http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/video-nvidia-s-watch-dogs-pc-demo-dispels-graphics-concerns/0131033

Personally I'm going to be comboing PC with WiiU (simply because Nintendo exclusives interest me more than Sony or Microsoft ones).

There are massive pluses and minuses to PC and consoles, any anyone who tries to only emphasize one or the other is either trolling or ignorant. That doesn't mean that some people aren't legitimately better off with ONLY one or the other. There are. But at the same time one can't make a subjective statement about other people's preferences and experiences and have it be truth.

Basically any cross-platform game released so far that's on PC+NextGenConsole has been a better experience technically on a PC such as the one you have @ 1080p. But does that help the guy who wants to play with his XBL buddies? No. Does that help the guy who can't play with a Kb/mouse without going crazy (I, for example, am the reverse with all FPS games)? No. Etc.

People are different. Everybody chill out.

It's not that long till E3 and Watch Dogs are launched. I'd wait until then because it'll be readily available info as to whether it will be a better buy on PC for you. Bonus points is that you'll get to see Sony's PS4 updated plans, and XB1's presentation, which should be interesting considering recent events. If PS4 looks good enough, go for it. There will certainly be stacks of great games to play over the years, and PS+ has great value attached. If not, then PC it is (bonus is you don't even have to change anything yet, maybe a $400 maxwell midrange GPU in a year+).

Major points to consoles if you really enjoy : Sports, Local Multiplayer with friends in the living room, Fighting, and console exclusive series like Uncharted, God of War, etc.

 

[sze5003]

Of course it will look better on pc if you can jack everything up. There is no watchdogs demo so there is no way I would be able to try it on my pc and see what settings I can run at. I chose to buy it for ps4 since my friends will also be getting it on console. I prefer Gta style games on consoles anyway.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I don't care how large the communities are, larger usually means more childish crap, though console MP games do have online players for a very long time where on PC they die quickly if their not BF or COD. but I do like that on consoles people actually use headsets and speak...at least in the past from my experience, I have not tried MP on PS4..... and it's nice to talk to your friends while you game. The very few people I knew that played MP games on PC never bothered to use a mic, dunno why that always seems to be the case.
On console just listening to people sometimes made for some hilarious entertainment.

All the years of playing BF2, 2142, 3 and 4, UT series, Crysis, Tribes or any other PC MP game...no one ever makes use of VOIP, few even seem to use the commands if available.
I don't know what it's like now, I don't really care to play MP anymore, don't even have PS plus and see little reason to get it.

I think voice chat was always a big part of online gaming on consoles. Xbox Live starter kits came with the Microphone for the original Xbox, and the xbox 360 came with a basic headset in the box, continued into the Xbox One where again a basic headset is included. It's more widely used I think because it's such a big part of the experience on the consoles. On a PC people are used to being able to communicate via keyboard and I assume they don't want to buy a headset.

My only disappointment with the PS4 is lack of G27 wheel support. It's pretty clear that it's likely never going to happen. So I am considering picking up Project Cars or Asseto Corsa on PC just to use it but not sure which one will be better or if I'll even get into them much. Though Project Cars isn't on Steam, I don't like segregating my library.



Agree although PC has more genres but again it's kinda like the old Atari games, there's just so much junk it's harder to sort through to find the gems.

Just look at Steam's store. I see featured. Might and Magic, Breach and Clearn, Kerbal space program, Starbound, Broforce, ShadowRun, Planet Explorers....etc.
Steam is overloaded in Indie games, some in beta/alpha...not a bad thing, but picking out what you would really like has just got harder. If you're big into RTS and Adventure games even, you still have to sort through some crap and many don't seem to offer a demo. On PS4 if there is no demo, I can usually run down to Redbox or Family Video and rent it for $2 first.

Theres not 1 game featured anywhere on Steams front page that I would care about let alone play. I mean Overcast: Walden and the Werewolf? WTF? Is it fun? dunno, doesn't seem to be a demo and the screenshots are so dark I can't tell wtf it is other than reminds me of Amnesia or something.

Didn't Logitech stop supporting the G27 now? I think I read that somewhere.

I agree with the rest of your post. There is a lot of junk released on PC. It's like everyone and their brother releases games on Steam and it is very hard to weed through them all. Most of them have very little info and no reviews. I don't even give them a second look myself.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You seem to be ignoring that the OP already has a gaming PC with a GTX 680

In that context moving to a PS4 is silly because it is a major step downwards in gaming power. The fact that you can't run some new game on that PC in "ultra" settings doesn't mean it will run better on a half-as-fast PS4. The "pretty good" settings for that game should still offer better visual quality and frame rates.

As I said, I own a PS3 and 360, and have enjoyed games on them.

It's just a fact that a $1,000+ PC is going to render games better than a $400 console, and the OP already owns that PC.

(bold!)

But he won't own the PC capable of it in 5 years time. He will have to spend a further ~$500 to again have that ability or end up with lower settings on games which will probably actually look worse than a PS4. That was in his post as well. He mentioned not needing to worry so much about upgrades to keep proper framerates in new games. It's one concern for someone who may not feel constantly chasing upgrades is worth the return. It's always a personal decision, but it's not a totally invalid point.

 

[xantub]

I haven't played many PC games in like three years. I used to casually play console and seriously play PC but now I almost exclusively play console games. Reason being is that PC gaming is an expensive hobby. No real PC gamers want to turn down the graphics to be able to play a game. It's not cheap to keep up every other year with graphics. Plus I'd much rather recline on my couch and play than sit at a desk and play when I get home. Using a controller is not ideal when playing any FPS multiplayer on PC since you'll get murdered but on console, everyone is on the same playing field. Using a controller on PC is only good for single player games. Plus when having friends over and you want to play a game, sorry but that isn't happening on PC.

Wow, guess I'm not a "real PC gamer". My computer is near 3 years old, I play any game right now on medium-high setting with the 2 year old card that cost me $200.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wow, guess I'm not a "real PC gamer". My computer is near 3 years old, I play any game right now on medium-high setting with the 2 year old card that cost me $200.

The entire point IMO is to run settings you cannot achieve on a console. Running settings that are medium is at times lower than what the PS4 will be doing.

That's my opinion and it's why I feel that for some people a console is a better option. As I said before, it's a personal choice.

 

[DaveSimmons]

But he won't own the PC capable of it in 5 years time. He will have to spend a further ~$500 to again have that ability or end up with lower settings on games which will probably actually look worse than a PS4. That was in his post as well. He mentioned not needing to worry so much about upgrades to keep proper framerates in new games. It's one concern for someone who may not feel constantly chasing upgrades is worth the return. It's always a personal decision, but it's not a totally invalid point.

I don't agree that in (say) 3 years the PS4 is going to offer better graphics for some new game than the GTX 680 I have now will.

End-of-generation console games do look better than launch titles as they squeeze out more optimizations, but a lot of it is just tricks like lowering resolution, using low-resolution textures, using a short draw distance and accepting a 30 fps frame rate.

On a PC you can also lower resolution and make other quality adjustments to achieve the same thing.

So for Fallout 4 on PC you have a choice: spend $0 and probably still have at least slightly better image quality or (if you want to) spend $300 in 3 years for a new midrange graphics card. You're not "forced" to spend that $300.

If you already own the PC, you save $400+ now, and choose whether or not to spend $300 in 3+ years.

I never said buying a PC is the best choice for everyone. But if you already own a gaming PC that's much more powerful than a PS4 then switching to the PS4 because you can't stand to use less than the highest sliders in the PC image quality settings isn't rational.

There can be other good reasons to switch to a console but that one doesn't make sense.

I suppose if being forced to turn a setting down bothers you to the point that you can't enjoy a game, then having all settings taken away from you by the console developer might make you happier, even with a lower frame rate and reduced image quality.

 

[Lil Frier]

anyone who tries to only emphasize one or the other is either trolling or ignorant.

I think that could be worded better. There is definitely reason to emphasize one or the other, in the instance where someone doesn't care to use multiple platforms. Though I have a PC to game on, I find myself not doing so much because even with just 3 games on my One, I have more than enough to do on the console. Calling one a clear-cut option for all if definitely ignorant, but emphasizing one over the other is useful in many cases.

 

[Rakehellion]

it said that to play that game in Ultra settings, a GTX 780 is recommended, but I only have a GTX 680. If I'm going to play this game in medium settings, I might as will get this game for PS4 when it comes out.

You know there is a setting between Ultra and Medium, right?

 

[futurefields]

I bet they are talking Ultra with TXAA

You'll prob be able to run it at 60 fps ultra with like SMAA or 2x msaa with a 680.

 

[gorcorps]

if the ps4 has games you want to play, buy it. if it doesn't, then don't buy it.

i'm also not sure why you can't use both the pc and ps4, if you were to get it. i know the general idea on these forums is you are only allowed to like 1 gaming platform, but those of us who aren't morons understand the concept of enjoying more than 1 platform.

True story, that's what I did. Can't play Infamous on my PC and there will be other games that have the same problem.

My PC is a few years dated (i5-2500 and GTX570) but it's still enough to manage high settings at 1080p as long as I don't go nuts with SSAO and such. I even ran the HDMI cable necessary to get my PC displayed on my TV. With a wireless 360 controller I can play a lot of games through my PC almost as easily as a console.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I don't agree that in (say) 3 years the PS4 is going to offer better graphics for some new game than the GTX 680 I have now will.

End-of-generation console games do look better than launch titles as they squeeze out more optimizations, but a lot of it is just tricks like lowering resolution, using low-resolution textures, using a short draw distance and accepting a 30 fps frame rate.

On a PC you can also lower resolution and make other quality adjustments to achieve the same thing.

So for Fallout 4 on PC you have a choice: spend $0 and probably still have at least slightly better image quality or (if you want to) spend $300 in 3 years for a new midrange graphics card. You're not "forced" to spend that $300.

If you already own the PC, you save $400+ now, and choose whether or not to spend $300 in 3+ years.

I never said buying a PC is the best choice for everyone. But if you already own a gaming PC that's much more powerful than a PS4 then switching to the PS4 because you can't stand to use less than the highest sliders in the PC image quality settings isn't rational.

There can be other good reasons to switch to a console but that one doesn't make sense.

I suppose if being forced to turn a setting down bothers you to the point that you can't enjoy a game, then having all settings taken away from you by the console developer might make you happier, even with a lower frame rate and reduced image quality.

The problem is that as new games release the requirements always increase. It isn't a stagnant thing that never increases the required GPU horsepower. I would not be one bit surprised if next years PC games start to struggle on a 680. I don't expect to keep my sli 670 setup past next year. This simply does not happen with a console, so it is easier to just buy games than to chase upgrades and experiment with all the graphics options hunting down something playable.

Not everyone is happy with this anymore. Especially for those of us with limited game time each day week. Pop in the game and play a bit is much easier for them. I am lucky that my free time allows me to be able to try various beta drivers and experiment with the settings. I spend a good deal of time playing with custom AA modes with third party programs etc. Modding games also takes up extra time that could be spent playing the game. I am sure I have more free time than many others.

 

[VashHT]

I have fairly high-end system (i7-4930k, GTX 680, 32GB RAM, etc) but I'm thinking about retiring from PC gaming and buying a PS4 to fulfill my gaming time. I will still keep my PC. I read the recommendations for the upcoming Watchdogs in an article in the web and it said that to play that game in Ultra settings, a GTX 780 is recommended, but I only have a GTX 680. If I'm going to play this game in medium settings, I might as will get this game for PS4 when it comes out. Also there are very few games that take advantage of my PC's CPU but console games are optimized for their respective console. Will Watchdogs take advantage of more than 4 cores on the PC since the two latest consoles have more than 4 cores, or Watchdogs not take advantage of my CPU? Also by buying a PS4, i know that games that I buy for it will be optimized for it. I don't want to have to upgrade to a faster video card right now to play games at ultra settings as almost 2 years ago I bought my GTX 680 4GB for $560, hoping that it would be able to handle high to ultra settings for a few years.

Well if you lose the mindset that you have to run everything at ultra settings (which are going to be higher than the ps4 manages anyway in most cases) then you should be able to drag a lot of life out of your PC. I stuck with my 5870 for a long time this last generation and was able to run games at pretty high settings until I replaced it. I was actually upgrading my video card more in the past but didn't see a need to with my 5870 since a lot of the games I was playing were console ports and ran pretty well anyways.

 

[sze5003]

Well if you lose the mindset that you have to run everything at ultra settings (which are going to be higher than the ps4 manages anyway in most cases) then you should be able to drag a lot of life out of your PC. I stuck with my 5870 for a long time this last generation and was able to run games at pretty high settings until I replaced it. I was actually upgrading my video card more in the past but didn't see a need to with my 5870 since a lot of the games I was playing were console ports and ran pretty well anyways.

That is hard to do when you go from a sucky card to a really good card. You get spoiled being able to run everything at the highest settings.