| Intrinsic said:
|
I'm sorry, what?
You do realise the Cell wasn't actually that powerful overall, it was a cheap CPU design with a ton a flaws, it did have some good points however, not all of which related to gaming.
With that in mind, Cell was PowerPC based design, owned by IBM, when someone generally refers to the PC they think of x86 Intel/AMD based (And in some cases Via.)
However, the graphics processor in the Playstation 3 was not a custom design, it is PC hardware, developed by nVidia, thus without the PC, the Playstation 3 would have been a very different machine, same with the origional Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Playstation 4.
Sony can't afford to build fully custom hardware for it's machines, in-fact it's proved it's not always good at it either.
Microsoft also saw the cost benefits of going with hardware that's essentially already been "subsidised" by PC gamers, who have essentially funded high-end GPU development over the decades.
| Intrinsic said: These are the exactkinda semantics that PC gamers bring into every argument. The cost of games is irrelevant. In the very same way some can choose to go and watch a movie at the theatre and some can choose to pirate it for free. The cost of services are also irrelevant. And the reason for all this is cause you are assuming that majority of the people out there would even bother taking these things into consideration. I parent doesn't buy a PS4 for their kid thinking about how it could be cheaper buying games on the PC. Those things are just not anywhere near as important as you make them out to be. This is about the cost of entry. How much does it cost to buy the hardware that you plug into your TV. When a PC gamer is comparing a screenshot of a game running on PC to one running on consoles, the price of the game is irrelevant at that point.
|
So... No cost analysis then? To be expected I suppose.
Keep in mind, you brought up costs and now that there are other facets to costs, now you wish to deflect it?
Keep in mind, plenty of parents get a PC for their children rather than a console, especially in Asia.
Did you know that in the last 9 months Steam has grown in active users faster than Sony and Microsoft combined can shift their new consoles? You think those are all pimply teenage boys? The demographics may surprise you.
| Intrinsic said: So in all fairness, if you are going to comapre how much it cost to buy a console to a PC, you should simply only be talking about the cost of the hardware itself. If you have to start talking about things that only someone that the avergae joe couldn't care less about, then you have already started going off point. And this is the inherent problem with PC gamers. They seem to think everyone thinks like them or is them. I can get a white fruit of the loom t shirt for as little as $2. That doesn't mean I still won't buy a similar one that may even be less quality for $10 from ralph lauren. All this stuff about paywalls and Pc games being cheaper over this or that amount of time is simply irrelevant. If gamers can't afford to buy 10 console games/year but have a console then they would buy 3. If they can't afford to pay for online play then they wouldn't. its that simple. In the very same way that if they can't afford to spend $1000 on a PC then they wouldn't. Its all about choices and options. And cause you or some does one thing doesn't mean thats what everyone else should do.
|
The ENTIRE point is (And please stop deflecting/changing the argument) was how much cheaper consoles were to a PC, well guess what? It's actually not if you cared to do a proper costing breakdown over a long term.
| Intrinsic said: What is required to make an unbiased fair comparison isn't complicated at all. But a lot of PC gamers have this way of complicating everything. I think its in their nature. Its really simple. To make a fair comaprison. Take a $350/$400 console. With everything thats in it. Then take a $350/$400 PC. With at least similar components. An OS, HDD, input interface (controller, be it KB&M or controller), blu-ray drive..etc. Basically everything that you would get in that $350-$400 console box. Then you can compare the games running on those platforms together. Its really that simple. And I don't understand why it has to be any more complicated than that. Next year, when consoles cost $250-$300, if you are going to compare a MP game to the console, then again, you take a PC that costs $250-$300. Its really really simple logic if you ask me. |
If I were to use that kind of logic I would be claiming how expensive the Playstation 4 is compared to a Playstation 3, plus the Playstation 4 can't have similar components as the Playstation 3 and doesn't even have 1/10th the games.
This is the kind of "logic" you're throwing at PC gamers.
| Intrinsic said: You are exagerating. Even if you do not have an internet connection on a console, and you buy a game. You can still just put it into your console and play it. Have you thought about something, do you know its not even possible to get games for a PC anymore without an internet connection of some sort? |
Actually, when I bought my Xbox One, that would have been impossible, I was required to connect it online to patch the system first, thus I was unable to drop in and play Call of Duty. (Which I had to install to the hard drive anyway.)
Have you really not noticed the trend over the last decade or so? Games simply have less testing, always have day 1 patches. (Battlefield 4 anyone?)
And because of such, need patching, just like their PC counterparts.
And I don't mind having an Internet connection, I always have access to the internet, that's not even a first world problem anymore.
| Intrinsic said: Then start it ack up when I start up my console, then load up a brand new game for the first time. Lets see who starts playing that game first. Eve if you have got a $10000 PC, Time to game is always faster on consoles. Its kinda just the nature of things. |
Really wan't me to?
I have: Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz/6-cores, 12 threads, 64Gb DDR3 Ram, Quad-Radeon R9 290's and I have four Intel 730 240Gb SSD's in Raid.
What's a load time?
SSD's are stupidly fast, four of them working together are even faster.
However, my PC doesn't ever get turned off, just switched to a "work" profile for transcoding, encoding, editing, compute etc'. - Switching between such profiles is instant, there is no BIOS (In my case, UEFI) baggage to deal with.
I am also in the process of downgrading all my other machines to more efficient platforms, which will then access the games library on my main system, also cementing the need to never turn it off. (And also never needing to upgrade my other PC's ever ever ever again, can a single Console do that?)
| CGI-Quality said: I, unfortunately, even ran into some bottlenecking with Tri SLI Titans. Perhaps I was doing it wrong, but I had the best Intel CPU you could buy with it at the time! What more could it need? |
Tried overclocking that CPU? I saw big gains on my 3930K with Quadfire, sad reality is, allot of games are still single/dual threaded heavy.
| Intrinsic said: Nope its not bogus. Why? Cause we could be here talking about how good BF4 looks on the PS4 in 900p compared to it being 720p on the XB1. And some PC gamer will take that as a cue to find that benchmark from TomsHardware that ran the game at 4K at 64fps on ultra settings with a R9 295x2 GPU (thats a $1000+ GPU by the way) or on an Nvidia titan z ($3000 GPU) and start throwing those screen shots around in the thread like that is the floor of PC performance when in truth its a very nrealistic ceiling that very very very few PC gamers can afford. We all know that with more money to spend you can get better performance from a PC setup. But how does that make sense when comparing that to what basically a sub $200 GPU is doing. |
You're blowing it out of proportion.
Lets take the Radeon 7850 as an example, which is in the same ballpark as the Playstation 4, you can run Battlefield 4 at 1080P on it.
You are given this thing... Called a choice.
No $1,000 GPU required, only common sense needed.
Mystro-Sama said:
|
I'm glad it had the effect that was intended, there is a purpose to such insanity.
| Intrinsic said: Believe me... I am still in complete absolute shock how misinterpreted this thread has been by some. Especially considerring how clearly I amde he point of this whole discussion in my OP. And some of them are still hard at trying to prove a point that I was never even trying to make to begin with lol. |
That's mostly your own fault rather than everyone elses as you didn't elaborate on such points in the origional post, which left room for it to be construed in other ways.
| Sentient_Nebula said: I definitely agree with what you're saying. But it makes sense that consoles are generally preferred over PC, for the reasons you described. Consoles are aimed at the average consumer. But most "enthusiast" gamers prefer PC, mainly because it gives you much more freedom and more options (The better graphics is only one of many reasons people like PC over console). It's easy to justify the extra upfront cost for these reasons. The "average consumer" market will always be larger than the enthusiast one. And that's why consoles and console games are always more prolific. |
Except that PC gaming is growing at a rate faster than consoles, and also has more gamers than all 3 console platforms combined and also has more revenue floating around and more games, arguable it could be because of the "Building/Survival" genre's that have allowed the PC to see such explosive growth.
Thus, by extension PC Gamers are more prolific than console gamers currently.
I've seen children get a PC for instance, just so they could play Minecraft as it's more feature rich than the console version, yes really.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
