By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This is why I use HD consoles even for games that also come out on PC

Those requirement are not that high. You can fill them with around $400-$500.

The problem is that, around 90% of people lacks the knowledge needed to build their own PC's, so they are based on the prices of Dells, HPs, Alienwares, etc.

Branded PC's are WAY more expensive than custom ones.

And WTF with the GeForce 7800/Radeon X1300... that doesn't makes any sense.



Around the Network
Legend11 said:
your mother said:

You are forgetting about optimization.

Let's see how Crysis runs, unoptimized in an HD console.

60fps? 1920x1080? Full graphics, texture and physics details? 16x anisotropic filtering? 8x FSAA? 2GB RAM? HDR?

No. No. No. No. No. No. And, no.

It wouldn't happen. What this shows you is that in fact, despite the excessive requirements, your average gaming rig will still be able to handle Stranglehold. The same cannot be said the other way around.


The point he was making was about high system requirements and you bring out the game with the highest system requirements for PC to counter him, how does that make sense?


It makes about as much sense as comparing system specs for an unoptimized port to the PC against the same game optimized for a console.

Ckmlb was implying that with such outrageous hardware requirements, PC gaming is excessively expensive. My point is arguing that a) PC gaming in fact doesn't cost that much, and b) unoptimized console ports of a graphics-intensive PC game would not even run.



High end PC gaming is expensive. Yes I understand that some of you could build a rig like that for less than the cost of a PS3. Most people can't or don't want to.

Of course you only have to buy one controller for most PC games, most of them don't have multi-player offline/no lan modes.

My point is that Mass consumers are turned off by all of the jargon and complexities.

Hell I do web programming and I don't want to mess with all that. I want to put my game in and play it.

No one is arguing that PC games don't look the best.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

the requirement isn't really that outrageous. pretty standard setup for new computers these days, especially if you're running vista. my current laptop bought for $1200 a year ago has those specs.

it's still silly for midway to come up with specs like those though, losing like 80% of the PC market. and i read the game got a $32 mln development budget? for real?



the Wii is an epidemic.

steven787 said:
High end PC gaming is expensive. Yes I understand that some of you could build a rig like that for less than the cost of a PS3. Most people can't or don't want to.

Of course you only have to buy one controller for most PC games, most of them don't have multi-player offline/no lan modes.

My point is that Mass consumers are turned off by all of the jargon and complexities.

Hell I do web programming and I don't want to mess with all that. I want to put my game in and play it.

No one is arguing that PC games don't look the best.

High end PC gaming is expensive. Yes I understand that some of you could build a rig like that for less than the cost of a PS3. Most people can't or don't want to.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that - luxury Voodoo PCs can cost north of 17,000$!

Midrange PC gaming is as affordable (or cheaper even) as buying all three nex-gen consoles.

You are right that most people can't or don't want to bother, but some are willing, and some are even willing to do so because of the cost benefits (PCs aren't just for gaming, they are for a wide variety of applications). For some PC gaming is a hobby, just like console gaming is. PC hobbyists modify their PCs physical appearance, overclock them, and buy new parts for it - it's a hobby, like pimping your car!

For those not willing to put together their own PCs, they can buy from any one of a multitude of companies that offer pre-built systems. 

There are many games that do not support multiplayer or LAN on a PC, but then again, there are many games that do. You can make the exact same comment about consoles.

Ultra-high-end boutique vendors such as Voodoo and Alienware have thrived (even bought by HP and Dell if I'm not mistaken). Midrange vendors like Gateway, Dell and HP offer PCs at compelling price ranges that allow you to game as well as do whatever it is that you do with PCs. These companies offer you pre-built computers that you need to assemble, and buying a computer for regular gaming needs does not require the consumer to know any more about computer jargon and complexities than the person buying a computer, say, for graphic design or web programming. Therefore, even if you are a mass consumer the choices you have to make (e.g. 1 or 2GB memory? 120 or 160GB hard drive? GeForce or Radeon?) are no more confusing than figuring out whether you want to buy the Core, Premium or Elite 360, or the 20GB, 60GB or 80GB PS3, or even:

LCD or Plasma, DLP or Projection?

720p, 1080i or 1080p?

HDTVs are mass consumer goods, yet these decisions are arguably equally costly and difficult to decide on than whether you want the 8600GT or the 8800GTX.

I can appreciate that you want to just put your game in and play it, but starting with this generation this isn't always the case. The early PS3 adopters could not just run home, pop in a game and play it. They had to first download a firmware update that could take hours. Patches are released for games that require you to download them before playing. Even Nintendo's Wii requires patching before you play Paper Mario or Mario Strikers, for example.

I wouldn't argue that consoles suck either. I think they are different means to the same end: To get your game on. I just feel that PC gaming has an undeserved bad rap at being too expensive for gaming, which it isn't. It may not be as seamless or streamlined for gaming, but that is because a PC was never designed with a singular purpose in mind - yet there are still many of us who are willing to put up with installs and graphics tweaking because in the end both  consoles and PCs are perfectly capable of delivering the fun we seek at comparative and competitive prices.

Finally, check out the thread on free PC games in this forum - there are many outstanding games there that you can legally download and play for free. That in itself has got to be worth something!



Around the Network

Ok I'll bite... Put together a PC (you don't have to include monitor) that cost $349 that can play all the games coming out on PC decently (that includes Stranglehold).

In that PC you'll have to include the cost of a computer case, power supply, dvd drive, ram, motherboard, cpu, videocard, keyboard, harddrive, mouse, fans, and an operating system (no free OS with Wine or similar bs either, they choke and have problems with some (many?) PC games, so either XP or Vista).

Good luck...



ckmlb said:

Minimum requirements for Stranglehold coming this month on 360/PC and next for PS3:

Windows XP SP2 / VISTA (Games for Windows compliant)
Dual Core Processor
2 Gigs of Ram
Nvidia 7800 or higher / ATI x1300 or higher
Disk space: 15 gigs

 

 

 

 

Yep, I was going to buy Bioshock for the PC (I like keyboard and mouse combo), but I think my PC is too old now (Athlon 64, GeForce 6600gt, 1gb).

So yah, its going on the 360. 

 



PS360 ftw!

Currently playing..........

Gears of War 2, GTA IV Lost and Damned, Little Big Planet (Yes I said I had no interest but my girl wanted to try it and we did and now Im hooked )

 

 

Up front PC costs can be fairly high. But, unlike consoles where you junk the old one after five years, you can typically upgrade PCs incrementally. Need a little more graphics power? Buy a new video card for $250. Swapping to hard disk too often? More RAM, $100. Out of space? Hard drive, $50. The *big* shifts in computer hardware happen (relatively) infrequently; most of the time its similar hardware that performs better. Can't say the same thing for consoles, where your $600 PS3 is useless once the PS4 comes out. Most of the non-essential PC components also have the advantage of being once and done; I don't *need* to buy a new keyboard, mouse, power supply, case, or sound card for a long time after I get my first one. Again, can't say the same for consoles, as I need to buy stuff like controllers and memory cards with each new console iteration.

Now, not everyone is willing to take the time/is smart enough to build their own PC out of parts, incrementally, but it's a huge cost saving, and reuseability is a distinct advantage over consoles. Not to mention that a good PC can be used for an awful lot of different things besides gaming.

 

Addendum: The 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 (ie, what you need to run Bioshock) first appeared in 2001, the same year as the XBox.  Something tells me you couldn't run Bioshock on the XBox...which makes it sound like you need to upgrade *consoles* more often than *PCs*, not the other way round.



Legend11 said:
Ok I'll bite... Put together a PC (you don't have to include monitor) that cost $349 that can play all the games coming out on PC decently (that includes Stranglehold).

In that PC you'll have to include the cost of a computer case, power supply, dvd drive, ram, motherboard, cpu, videocard, keyboard, harddrive, mouse, fans, and an operating system (no free OS with Wine or similar bs either, they choke and have problems with some (many?) PC games, so either XP or Vista).

Good luck...

Just curious who said $349? And linux works fine for games if you know what you are doing, but since we are going mass user we can ignore it.... But gamers are going to have existing copies of windows to install on the new PC, and for that matter are going to be canabalizing parts anyways...but all I ask is you assume people aren't dumb enough to throw away their existing windows info and are smart enough re-use it. Gamers should know better than to just merrily buy a brand new copy of windows with every PC.

But to meet your hardware requirements you get...

$71 - Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Windsor 2.2Ghz) [AM2]
$47 - MSI K9VGM-V [AM2]
$75 - Wintex AMPO 2GB (1GB x 2) DDR2 533
$20 - HIPRO True 400W PSU
$17 - LITE-ON CD/DVD Drive (48x/16x)
$50 - 160GB Seagate Barracuda
$115 - eVGA 8600GT 256MB (You can get even better deals on refurbs)
$10 - Case from any local shop, even used works here (just check it first).

And you don't really need fans for this system, the GPU and CPU come with them and they are usually more than sufficient, but if you do need them they are probably included in that used case you bought.

Grand Total - $405

 

 


Now, realise this. Every penny more you spend on a system like this gives you enormous jumps in power over what you were getting for what you paid. This system is well below the $ per performance line. Think of it as a logarathmic curve, at the low end you can spend a little bit more $ for a lot more power, but as you spend more you are getting diminishing returns. With a PC like this today, you are not getting the most out of your money, but when you absolutely must adhere to the budget, it gets the job done.

 

But also realize that this system does SO much more than a console, it is a home PC for the family and with the myriad of free software availiable you can do a great deal with it for very little or zero extra cost. It really is far beyond shortsighted to even compare what a PC does to what a console does, at least outside of the realm of games where there are at least some obvious correlations.

PS - I said $650 for a gaming rig, so imagine what I could do with the processor/video card with the extra $250 bucks tossed in.

PPS - All parts/prices were found on newegg.



To Each Man, Responsibility

Well said Sqrl, well said.