Why I no longer play games on PC. A discussion?

[Mr. Pedantic]

Maybe you could recommend me a current 80$ I would be happy with and instructions on how to be happy with it.

I do agree, living on the bleeding edge just leads to disappoint and lots of lost money.

From your first post I doubt you'd ever be happy with an $80 GPU no matter what you did. It's interesting that you 'need' to have the graphics set to the highest possible quality and with flawless framerates when you are happy with jagged models, strange animations, and jerky framerates on a console. Maybe you should try PC gaming on your TV?

 

[EvilComputer92]

Here's an argument. I payed 550$ for a 7800GTX in 2005. Now, I can't run Team Fortress 2 even with below medium settings without consistently going below 20 FPS.

WTF? 550$, What?

Except it isn't any better today. Looking at graphics card today, you have a slew of "new" cards introduced by AMD and Nvidia, which are actually steps backwards. New features but slower performance. What? Why would I want to pay more money for slower performance? Some people actually consider buying a card from a previous generation at a similar price point, because it offers BETTER performance.

Look at the 5850. ASSUMING you already have the fastest CPU/RAM available on the planet, you can and will dip to 47 fps in Fallout 3, for the low low price of 310$ according to tomshardware.com. Now thats assuming they are running THE most taxing part of Fallout3, which they aren't. Throw in a handful of nice mods, and whoops, its now 30fps. Or heck, an "intense" but fun mod, and you hit 20. I'm sorry, I just have a mental block about paying that much money, for anything less than 60fps+ all of the time. Thats a lot of money.

I would like to buy a new graphics card, but then I see benchmarks and I just don't see the point.I can stay where I'm at and have pretty shitty performance, or spend 300$ and have shitty performance except at a some higher settings. Keep waiting until I can spend 100$ on a card which will do my 1920*1200 at full at 50fps+ all the time. Maybe a couple more generations.

You have to live 1 or 2 generations in the past with PC gaming, with consoles you can live now. (I feel like) Wow this brand new GPU can finally run that game from 2008 maxed very comfortably.

So I just give up and play my 360.

Why do you want to run at 1080p? You do realize that all consoles run at 1280x720, but somehow you don't seem to care about that? Double standards ftw. Then you want mods which aren't
even available on consoles and then you are complaining about the fps loss. If you don't want them, don't get them. FO3 runs at about 30fps on consoles anyway.

Also, interesting that you post in console gaming. I think you would have gotten quite a different set of responses if you posted in PC.

If you have some compulsion to play at maximum settings, then that's your problem. I played through Crysis on High settings at 1280x1024 on an 8800GT, which was $200 at launch. Got about 20 to 30 fps. Not the best, but certainly playable. And similar to the framerates and resolution I get on consoles.

I did just the opposite as you. I switched from being an avid console gamer since I was 12 years old to being mostly a PC gamer in 2007 since I built my own PC. I enjoy it a lot more than my 360. In fact the only time I turned on my 360 this year was to play the Reach beta. There is no denying PC gaming is more expensive. For me, it is also more rewarding. It requires a measure of self control. In return, you get a far more customizable and open experience. That's the tradeoff.

The fact is that PC gaming has always been for the more hardcore gamer. If you just want to enjoy a few rounds of MW2, play some Just Cause 2. I would say don't even think about going for PC gaming. It also explains why the overall PC crowd is more mature when you play multiplayer games. 12 year old teenagers just don't have the money and technical skill to build their own rigs, while it takes very little skill for a kid to go and cry for an xbox. I'm stereotyping here, but it's mostly true.

 

[mingsoup]

Why do you want to run at 1080p? You do realize that all consoles run at 1280x720, but somehow you don't seem to care about that? Double standards ftw. Then you want mods which aren't
even available on consoles and then you are complaining about the fps loss. If you don't want them, don't get them. FO3 runs at about 30fps on consoles anyway.

Also, interesting that you post in console gaming. I think you would have gotten quite a different set of responses if you posted in PC.

If you have some compulsion to play at maximum settings, then that's your problem. I played through Crysis on High settings at 1280x1024 on an 8800GT, which was $200 at launch. Got about 20 to 30 fps. Not the best, but certainly playable. And similar to the framerates and resolution I get on consoles.

Absolutely true. Double standards.

Very few console games are >30fps correct? GTA4 and Fallout 3 on the 360...would you say they are 30fps locked? about? I find that very playable and enjoyable. Halo 3?

 

[Jules]

I still love my Gaming PC but i don't game on it much. I use it mainly for Surfing the web, Teamspeak and Ps3 Media server. Sure i don't game on it much but ill never stop gaming on pc's just like i wont stop gaming on consoles. Must suck to be limited to only one platform.

 

[Terzo]

Maybe you could recommend me a current 80$ I would be happy with and instructions on how to be happy with it. (I suppose buying a 24" Dell wasn't a very good idea, if I wanted to be happy, but then again, I could just run at lower resolutions, did it all the time back in the CRT days.)

I do agree, living on the bleeding edge just leads to disappoint and lots of lost money.

I dont keep up with the video cards, but I would probably go with the 4850. Sure it's 2 years old, but it seems you can nab it for about $100. Probably less if you wait a for a sale. You wont be able to play games with everything maxed but for the money I think it's a decent card.

I realize that we're coming from different angles though; I play at 1680x1050 and usually play older games, so my hardware isn't as much of an issue. I don't need top of the line, I am fine with "good enough." As Pedantic said, since you have higher expectations there might not be a "budget" card that you'll be satisfied with. Nothing wrong with spending money for good performance, though I consider $300 a lot (seems to be going rate for 5850) and $500 is way too much.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Absolutely true. Double standards.

Very few console games are >30fps correct? GTA4 and Fallout 3 on the 360...would you say they are 30fps locked? about? I find that very playable and enjoyable. Halo 3?

Yes they are. GTA4 is usually running at about 20 fps. Fallout 3 is not capped but it rarely goes above 30. Halo 3 is locked at 30. Apparantly you need 60fps on a PC though? Ooookay.

Really if your so adamantly opposed to spending the investment and time required for PC gaming, then don't. As I have repeatedly said, console gaming is easier, better with friends, and less time consuming. Justifying yourself to everyone isn't necessary.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It could just be that the experience on a TV is different to that on a computer monitor. Maybe you could try PC gaming with video out to your TV for a while, see how that works.

 

[fantolay]

At least you mentioned Starcraft 2

 

[bullbert]

It could just be that the experience on a TV is different to that on a computer monitor. Maybe you could try PC gaming with video out to your TV for a while, see how that works.

Yup.

One common selling point for Consoles, is that the average consumer could not figure out how to connect their PC to their TV (although many of us have been doing that since the 1980s), could not figure out how to download updates to their PC (was doing that in the mid-1990s), could not figure out how to play multiplayer on their PC (was doing that in the late 1980s), etc.

With this build-in ease of use in the last generation of Consoles, video gaming has "come into the Light" and many consumers no longer consider it a nerd-only activity. It took 3 decades***, but video gaming has finally become almost "cool".

So don't poo on the Consoles. And the Clone Fanboi needs to keep his PC as competitive gaming platform, because without the pricing competition, his $60 games would already cost closer to $100. Ouch!


*** (for me dating way back to the Time Share Teletype server-terminal systems in the early 1970s then onto the Apple ][ in the late 1970s and onto the "IBM clones" in the mid 1980s)

 

[bullbert]

I am more than content to play Just Cause, Fallout, Morrowind, etc on my 360. I would rather have a slightly reduced experience (if that) and not have to worry about my 350$ GPU not being good enough.

I am just the opposite. Maybe you do not care as much about your total gaming experience, but Mods (especially when the gamer community fix bugs and restore content that the Publisher never pays the Develop to fix) are a requirement for me.

And my GPU did not cost $350, but $80 via a Hot Deal almost 2 years ago. You kids need to learn how to utilize those Hot Deals sites. It is STILL alive and kicking a STILL more powerful than your Console's GPU. I have no need to upgrade it, and no plans to until probably a year or so after the next "Next Gen" console hit the stores. You also have to remember that due to the timing of the pre-release development kits, the Console GPU is already "one generation" behind (6 to 12 months old) the bleeding edge PC GPUs. Although I quit buying the bleeding edge component once I got old enough to discover better ways to spend my money, when I do upgrade to that future 2nd tier GPU product, it will be a fraction of your $350 price but still equal or better than the GPU in that time frame's Consoles.

Wait! I am arguing with a Fanboi. Nevermind. Go on your way. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

 

[toyota]

only takes a few console games before the costs add up where pc games can usually be found for VERY cheap not long after release. heck this month I have bought 6 pc games including some fairly big titles for under 50 bucks total. ONE of those games was still $50 on either console version.

also unless there is a way to turn vsync on I want ever permanently switch to consoles. I could probably get used to the controller and lower graphics but screen tearing literally makes me feel sick.

 

[Maximilian]

Dont worry console gamers, dont worry mr my 7800gtx sucks guy. Blizzard has a solution for everyone, its called starcraft 2 and will be released very soon It will run on a 9800 PRO from 2003 :thumbsup:

If you dont like that theres diablo 3 in the near future.

 

[Looney]

I thought the same myself. But MMOs have been pretty much nonexistent in consoles, so i'm still 'stuck' with a PC. That said, i just built a new system with an i5 750 OC'd to 4ghz stable, and spent $150 on a 5770, and i can run any game i want on it without any problems.

The crappy thing is, i spent $50 on ME2, when i could have bought the same PC version for $10. But i love playing in the comfort of my bed with my plasma, and i wanted the achievements.

 

[ChickenShwarma]

Really if your so adamantly opposed to spending the investment and time required for PC gaming, then don't. As I have repeatedly said, console gaming is easier, better with friends, and less time consuming. Justifying yourself to everyone isn't necessary.

Well said.

 

[Anarchist420]

I did it the other way around than the OP; I was a console gamer, but then I switched to PC only. The upgrading does get a little expensive, but it's worthwhile to me. I only upgrade GPUs when a new feature set comes out, rather than 2 or 3 times the same generation. Generally, 40 (or 2-3 less) fps and 1280x800, all other IQ (filtering, effects, AA, texture quality, RGBA and depth precision) settings maxed is enough for me.