PCs and the cost of gaming

[Kalfear]

...

PS: Think this might be last computer game I ever buy. Just no reason anymore to play the constant upgrade system spec game with the quality of games coming out for XBox 360. Least with consel systems the designers need to design game for the system rather then asking custoimers to upgrade system for the game!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do not pollute ANOTHER thread with an inane holy war about console versus PC, or console versus console.

 

The only time a console has been objectively better than a PC was when the original Playstation was released in 1995, and the spec was better than the 486DX66 mainstream CPUs out there.

 

You keep buying

[metadigital]

Wow someone[']s touchy! Get a grip guy! (obviously after that rant you DO CARE)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I care only inasmuch as I oppose ignorance wherever I find it.

For the record, didnt mention quality what so ever, just financial obligations and simple fact is computer gaming companies are just forcing you to upgrade your systems to run their products much to often now.

 

Back in the day (when 'puters were new on market ... C-64s, Apple 2Es, heck ... even 286s, 386s, 486s and P1s) you could get 2-3 years worth of gaming from a system, now adays you have to upgrade system, ram, or vid card (or combinations of the 3) every 9-18 months almost!

 

With Consel [sic passim] systems you don[']t need to do that as games are designed for the system rather then for what the system can eventually do after being upgraded!

 

Not to mention a decked out consel systems runs at the same price as a high grade vid card. The math is pretty easy to follow!

 

Far as quality goes, scream and yell all you want but anyone that's actually formed educated opinions based on fact (not personal bias or opinion) knows there isn't a huge quality difference in graphics or game play between what games avialable for computers NOW and the new PS systems and XBOX 360 systems. Computer or consel are pretty much all comparable now once again.

 

Sorry to invade your world with reason and EDUCATED facts though.

 

Please return to your civ world as your obviously void of the real one!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My you are eloquent. Please, if it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining to me what the difference is between forming "educated opinions based on fact (not personal bias or opinion)"? To wit, if I have an opinion, it is defined by none, all or some information and judgement.

 

Anyway, enough syntax correction; every point you have made above is incorrect. Allow me to elucidate, below.

[*]I don't recall ever having a games publisher holding a gun to my head and frog marching me into a computer retailer to enforce some onerous hardware purchasing regime.

[*]It is perfectly true, though, that any hardware investment from a previous console generation is completely redundant when the next generation is released. There is NO UPGRADE PATH. You cannot play an Xbox 360 game on an Xbox, for example. So it seems that your point actually scores against your argument.

[*]I also know, from first hand experience, that there are innumerable games that I can choose to play from the PC back catalogue.

[*]I have a laptop that is two years old and I am able to play every game on the market right now.

[*]What's more, even a PC that is over three years old can play the newest games, just with the graphics configuration set to a lower standard.

[*]So I can choose to play a given game on my old PC, equivalent to a console, or I may decide instead to upgrade it to play the game with better graphics, sound, interface or whatever.

[*]What's more, I am able to buy a PC for less than

[alanschu]

Don't take this the wrong way mkreku, but sometimes we don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to game reviews.

 

Which is fair enough since we have our own preferences and whatnot.

 

The beauty thing about the list is that it requires zero financial investment from me. If I get Quake 4 and it's a so-so game, I still won't mind.

 

 

Having said that, the reason why Quake IV is on there is pretty much because there's not much else to choose from this year IMO. The two biggies are Call of Duty 2 and Civ 4. Even if Call of Duty 2 is just more CoD (though I already like the AI...giving accurate descriptions of enemy locations based on their positions was rather cool in the demo) it'd still be crazy high on my list.

 

The original CoD is easily in my upper tier of favourite games. On any given day, I'd put it behind my big 3 (Half-Life, Deus Ex, and Ultima 7 are uncatchably 1a, 1b, and 1c at the moment). So far the improvments over the original seem impressive, and the little bit I played of the second one was phenomenal.

[mkreku]

If you look past the spelling errors and syntactic inventions (hrmm), Kalfear does have a point.

 

1. Consoles are a great way of getting sophisticated technology cheap. As he says, a normal GPU for a computer costs more than a brand new console, which is true. Metadigital claims consoles offer obsolete technology. I beg to differ though, as the Playstation 2 basically introduced the DVD to the large audience, just as the Playstation 3 probably will with Blu-Ray (speculation).

 

2. A console may be impossible to upgrade, but that also means the developers have more time to learn the technology, resulting in software upgrades several years after the system is introduced. Metadigital claims his laptop is two years old and plays all games of today.. While I'm not even sure that's true, that laptop must have cost 10x more than a console anyhow, and it's still not going to show off the constantly changing, evolving graphics of the PC games (new DirectX versions, Shader models, etc.).

 

3. The Playstation 2 was introduced in the year 2000. Back then a normal PC had a 300 MHz CPU and 32 MB ram. Today it wouldn't even run the OS that's needed to play the games! Meanwhile some of the best games ever on the Playstation 2 have been released this year or late last year (God of War, Resident Evil 4, Shadow of the Colossus). Pretty good investment for $300 (if you bought the console early).

 

Of course, noone is forcing anyone to upgrade, but who is still sitting with 32 MB RAM? You upgrade your computer out of necessity.

 

 

 

Edit:

Don't take this the wrong way mkreku, but sometimes we don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to game reviews.

Of course not! I wasn't trying to say I know better than you, I was merely giving you a second opinion seeing as you haven't played the games yet and I have. Why would I be offended because we have different taste?

 

Except when it comes to Gothic, Wasteland and Deus Ex, because, as we all know, those games rock and everyone who thinks they don't SUCK )

Edited November 8, 2005 by mkreku

[metadigital]

I don't upgrade because of the demands of a games publisher, though.

 

The Playstation was streets ahead of the contemporary PCs, that's true, but since then the consoles haven't been better. Sure they are cheaper, but I would argue that you could play most of the games (minimum specs are ususally Pentium III 500MHz and 128MB RAM).

 

Also, you are failing to include the variable costs: games are more expensive on the consoles (presumeably so that the hardware manufacturers can claw back some of their huge sunk costs in licencing fees).

 

Sure the PS2 gave the masses the DVD drive, but we've all got one now. I can buy a writeable DVD for

[alanschu]

I think the big beef with Kalfear was that it volunteered his opinion into something that did not require it.

 

I doubt I, metadigital, or anyone else particularly cared about his purchasing habits.

 

 

Of course not! I wasn't trying to say I know better than you, I was merely giving you a second opinion seeing as you haven't played the games yet and I have. Why would I be offended because we have different taste?

 

You never know! Some people are craaaaa-azy like that. And since you're a Leafs fan I just assumed

[Kalfear]

Yuppers MK, thats all I was saying.

 

and yes my spelling is terrible (and getting worse) now!

 

I think the big beef with Kalfear was that it volunteered his opinion into something that did not require it.

 

I doubt I, metadigital, or anyone else particularly cared about his purchasing habits.

 

Really Alan, welp all I can say is people need to get over it. This is a message board, lord forbid there by messages! (shakes head)

 

If you reread my original message, I wasnt saying consoles better, I wasnt saying people should stop buying or playing PC games. Just said I was done (which is sad kinda as I have ever Civ game ever made and have played them all to completion "except 4 as just got it week or so ago"). But even Civ 4 pushing my puter limits now so the statement is relative in that manner.

 

Love civ games but buying more ram or new vid card or what ever makes game not worth it "FOR ME". Game + hardware = to high a price IMO.

 

Off Civ topic for a sec, just look at Eq2 (I dont play it for the record). Developers fully admit they designed game so the TOP of the line machines currently on market couldnt run it at full settings. So when a person buys that game they know flat out they will have to spend 1000s in hardware upgrades as well to get the full extent of the game. Thats just criminal IMO. Designers should design to the current systems so there can be a reasonable expectaion of ALL that they can enjoy it with out lag and comprimise!

 

PS: MK, yas dead on. A standard lap top (that didnt include 1000s of extra dollar items bought years ago will not be running todays games properly no matter what someone says. My puter it self is only 3 years old and I have upgraded ram twice and vid card once in those 3 years since purchase.

 

But thats what Forums great for, I could say Im playing Civ 4 on my old C64 with out reprise as no one here knows me in real life. Gotta love internet animitity

Edited November 10, 2005 by Kalfear

[Missy]

PS: MK, yas dead on. A standard lap top (that didnt include 1000s of extra dollar items bought years ago will not be running todays games properly no matter what someone says. My puter it self is only 3 years old and I have upgraded ram twice and vid card once in those 3 years since purchase.

 

But thats what Forums great for, I could say Im playing Civ 4 on my old C64 with out reprise as no one here knows me in real life. Gotta love internet animitity

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My desktop PC is almost three years old now, and still runs newer games pretty well. My laptop is about fifteen months old and wasn't exactly top of the range when I purchased it, although it has a decent spec. I'm running Civ4 quite happily on the laptop so far.

 

I do know what you're saying though - PC gaming can be an expensive hobby. There is no way I can afford a major upgrade in the foreseeable future, but then that is okay as there aren't that many new games around on the PC that have me bothered enough to worry about upgrading.

[Surreptishus]

Sure the PS2 gave the masses the DVD drive, but we've all got one now. I can buy a writeable DVD for

[Diamond]

I'm running Civ4 quite happily on the laptop so far.

What is your laptop?

I'm planning to buy Civ4, but I don't know if it happily runs on my laptop.

[Missy]

I'm running Civ4 quite happily on the laptop so far.

What is your laptop?

I'm planning to buy Civ4, but I don't know if it happily runs on my laptop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fujitsu Siemens Amilo A1630. It's a P4 3.2Ghz, with a Radeon 9700 mobility, 1Gb RAM. So, you'd expect it to run the game just fine anyway. The same laptop had some difficulties with Everquest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies though. Also, my boyfriend's brother's laptop, which was only a few months older, pretty much couldn't run either game.

 

The recommended spec for Civ4 says:

 

1.8Ghz P4/Athlon

512Mb RAM

128Mb video card with directx 8

Directx 7 compatible soundcard

Supported O/S: Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

 

I was expecting some issues with Civ4 on the laptop as I've read there are some ATI related bugs...which would be a pain since both my desktop and laptop have ATI cards - all fine so far though.

[Diamond]

I almost meet the recommended specs, but...

Damn my 16Mb GeForce 440Go. <_<

Oh, well...

[Kalfear]

I'm running Civ4 quite happily on the laptop so far.

What is your laptop?

I'm planning to buy Civ4, but I don't know if it happily runs on my laptop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fujitsu Siemens Amilo A1630. It's a P4 3.2Ghz, with a Radeon 9700 mobility, 1Gb RAM. So, you'd expect it to run the game just fine anyway. The same laptop had some difficulties with Everquest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies though. Also, my boyfriend's brother's laptop, which was only a few months older, pretty much couldn't run either game.

 

The recommended spec for Civ4 says:

 

1.8Ghz P4/Athlon

512Mb RAM

128Mb video card with directx 8

Directx 7 compatible soundcard

Supported O/S: Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

 

I was expecting some issues with Civ4 on the laptop as I've read there are some ATI related bugs...which would be a pain since both my desktop and laptop have ATI cards - all fine so far though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See Ati, thats the point tho

 

Your system might be 3 years old but 1 gig ram was not the standard 3 years ago. Heck, most computers now adays dont come with 1 gig ram yet for that matter. So you payed extra back then rather then upgrade later when needed. End result though is you still had to pay extra.

 

When I bought my system 3 years ago I upgraded my ram order to 256 (it sold with 128). Year later I was buying anouther 256 megs. Year after that was new vid card.

 

My system is P4 3.2 gig, 256 geforce 4, 512 ram, and civ 4 runs slow. Its playable but its obviously slow.

 

IE: Even though I meet and beat the recomended standards for civ4, its still taxing my system for all its worth.

 

Just a vicious circle far as PC games go in todays markets.

[Missy]

I'm running Civ4 quite happily on the laptop so far.

What is your laptop?

I'm planning to buy Civ4, but I don't know if it happily runs on my laptop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fujitsu Siemens Amilo A1630. It's a P4 3.2Ghz, with a Radeon 9700 mobility, 1Gb RAM. So, you'd expect it to run the game just fine anyway. The same laptop had some difficulties with Everquest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies though. Also, my boyfriend's brother's laptop, which was only a few months older, pretty much couldn't run either game.

 

The recommended spec for Civ4 says:

 

1.8Ghz P4/Athlon

512Mb RAM

128Mb video card with directx 8

Directx 7 compatible soundcard

Supported O/S: Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

 

I was expecting some issues with Civ4 on the laptop as I've read there are some ATI related bugs...which would be a pain since both my desktop and laptop have ATI cards - all fine so far though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See Ati, thats the point tho

 

Your system might be 3 years old but 1 gig ram was not the standard 3 years ago. Heck, most computers now adays dont come with 1 gig ram yet for that matter. So you payed extra back then rather then upgrade later when needed. End result though is you still had to pay extra.

 

When I bought my system 3 years ago I upgraded my ram order to 256 (it sold with 128). Year later I was buying anouther 256 megs. Year after that was new vid card.

 

My system is P4 3.2 gig, 256 geforce 4, 512 ram, and civ 4 runs slow. Its playable but its obviously slow.

 

IE: Even though I meet and beat the recomended standards for civ4, its still taxing my system for all its worth.

 

Just a vicious circle far as PC games go in todays markets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I paid less than some people were paying for the model with 512Mb. Internet how I love thee. Sixteen months, not three years. My desktop I bought nearly three years ago and yes, I did pay extra on that because it was my first "top of the range" non-selfbuild PC.

 

I do take your point though, the only real reason I was in any way considering that it wouldn't run a new game well is because of EQ2 and SWG, which made my laptop sad.

 

I think that really, I'm used to PC gaming being a costly business...it has been for the last few years at least. I think one of the real problems is that we have a "gotta have it now" mentality in society - people don't want to wait, so they have to be up to date. Game doesn't run fast enough, graphics not quite good enough, etc. Most of the time I just think back to having to swap disks in my Amiga...and check myself for being spoilt.

[alanschu]

I've learned to curb that desire. When I played FEAR, I still though it looked hella good on my lowly Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm not someone that needs 1600x1200. In fact, most games I just set to 1024x768 because it's the resolution I have been playing with for years.

 

Unless I look for it, I don't notice the aliasing so it's not that big of a deal. FSAA also is moot for me. I do like anisotropic filtering though.

[Missy]

I've learned to curb that desire.  When I played FEAR, I still though it looked hella good on my lowly Radeon 9800 Pro.  I'm not someone that needs 1600x1200.  In fact, most games I just set to 1024x768 because it's the resolution I have been playing with for years.

 

Unless I look for it, I don't notice the aliasing so it's not that big of a deal.  FSAA also is moot for me.  I do like anisotropic filtering though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Same here - while it would be lovely to be at the cutting edge all the time, it just isn't possible for me, so I've learned to live with it. As for PC games over console - most of the time PC games just feel more comfortable for me, although I do also play on consoles and handhelds...

 

Also still using a Radeon 9800 Pro in my desktop.

[CoM_Solaufein]

The only handheld console I would play is if it had Tetris. Love that game.

[Ellester]

My desktop PC is almost three years old now, and still runs newer games pretty well.  My laptop is about fifteen months old and wasn't exactly top of the range when I purchased it, although it has a decent spec.  I'm running Civ4 quite happily on the laptop so far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same, my PC is about 2 years old ran Doom 3 kick butt, and can handle anything that is forthcoming too, like Oblivion. I have no plans on upgrading in the near future (at least a year). My other PC is 5 years old and runs win98 so I can still play my Command & Conquer series games. But that machine will handle any of the ie games or any game released since 2000 up to about a year ago fine. And as we know many of us still play those types of games like Wizardry 8 or PS:T still (except Volourn), and the machine is great for those types of games. A 5-year-old machine handles about half the games I play.

 

IIRC I think I have had three PC systems since 1996 and I have yet to find a game that played poorly on any of those machines during that time. From my experience, everyone is different though; I would say the upgrade of a PC is about equal to the release of new console, at least for me. And I can do all my programming on the PC, email, message forums, news, television, DVD movies, scanning, graphics work, printing, etc

Edited November 11, 2005 by Ellester

[Kalfear]

Should point out im speaking about normal users and not folks that building their own PCs. You can save a bundle if you build your own but thats in no way the normal or standard route for gamers. Some have the knowledge and interest in doing so, most just go with what they can afford though off the shelf.

 

Definately agree with you on the gotta have it now thing Ati. I also have learned to curb my desires. Currently I have the old Xbox system and am waiting at a minimum of a year till I look at buying the XBox 360 (probably 2 years) so the price drops.

 

But a new game shouldnt fall into the same catagory as a new system or new upgrades for a system, its a game after all.

 

For later poster that said Consoles and PC same price. Stated this before and feel free to look it up (you will see Im correct). A console system typically runs you the same cost as a PC's high end vid card. So there is a huge difference in price between the two. Buy a console and a game and you can play. buy a vid card and a game and welp, you now have a vid card and a game on your shelf (still need the computer, ram, ect). There is a huge price difference.

 

Just outta curiousity, I took a look at the obsolete computers for sale on Dell today (the lowest priced ones available). They cost the same as a brand new xbox360. Yet the come with 64-128 ram and low end vid cards. So if you payed your $600.00 for a xbox you could play any game on that system immediately. If you bought the PC, you could only play out of date games. In 2+ years you still could play any new game on your Xbox, on your PC you would DEFINATELY have to upgrade PC hardware before looking at new purchases.

 

As for email and that, hey im not saying PCs are not usefull (not at all). I still use my PC for web surfing, email, other non game programs, ect, (and civ 4). Its PC games that cause the upgrades sadly. a low end PC can do cutting edge graphic design, can allow you to program in any language, allows you to write reports and all that. It still has many uses. But as a gaming machine, its just not worth the financial obligation anymore.

 

Even graphics no longer a issue between console and PC. With HD TVs, consoles can reach the same resolution as a PC does. In fact probably higher in many cases.

 

Ati pointed out SWG as a game he/she had issues with. I also played SWG and even though I had a Geforce 4 256 card, I still was forced to play the game at 800-600 resolution. Now take a gander at some of the new screen shots for Xbox 360 games and P3 games, those are running at 1100 resolution and running with out lag.

 

*disclaimer* above example not meant to suggest you can play SWG on Xbox or P3 ... you can however play FFXI on P3, so relation is there.*

 

Long and short of whole issue is really, for alot less money you can have the same or better experience today with consoles and the peace of mind knowing your system will preform as advertised for at LEAST (a minimum...probably longer) 4 years.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Kalfear

[Hurlshort]

I think normal PC gamers DO build their own PC's. It's not that difficult, the instructions are right there, and there are plenty of websites and stores that tell you how to do so effectively.

 

When I build a PC, I know it will last at least 5 years. I might have to spend a hundred bucks for more RAM, or buy another mid-grade video card eventually, but I still think that's better than having a console.

 

I've owned every major console at some point, and I always get frustrated with the limitations they come with. They are hard to patch, game controllers aren't as good as a keyboard and mouse, certain games only come out on certain platforms, my wife hates me using the TV, etc.

 

PC gaming is the way to go, but you've gotta be knowledgable about a few things:

 

1. Learn how to make it yourself. It's not hard, and you'll become more comfortable when problems arise.

 

2. Buy midgrade video cards. Top of the line cards are a waste and will drop in price way before you get your moneys worth. Unless you have a limitlesss budget, then go all out.

 

3. Make sure your tower can breathe. Heat is a bitch.

[Kalfear]

I think normal PC gamers DO build their own PC's.  It's not that difficult, the instructions are right there, and there are plenty of websites and stores that tell you how to do so effectively. 

 

When I build a PC, I know it will last at least 5 years.  I might have to spend a hundred bucks for more RAM, or buy another mid-grade video card eventually, but I still think that's better than having a console. 

 

I've owned every major console at some point, and I always get frustrated with the limitations they come with.  They are hard to patch, game controllers aren't as good as a keyboard and mouse, certain games only come out on certain platforms, my wife hates me using the TV, etc.

 

PC gaming is the way to go, but you've gotta be knowledgable about a few things:

 

1.  Learn how to make it yourself.  It's not hard, and you'll become more comfortable when problems arise.

 

2.  Buy midgrade video cards.  Top of the line cards are a waste and will drop in price way before you get your moneys worth.  Unless you have a limitlesss budget, then go all out.

 

3.  Make sure your tower can breathe.  Heat is a bitch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Id disagree, of all the computer users I know over th e years, only a handful ever built their own. 90% easily purchased off the shelf or online.

 

In fact Id go so far as to say the only folks that did build their own came 1) from my programing classes back when I was in school (number of years ago now), or 2) DIE HARD (Talking total adicts) Gamers.

 

Folks I worked with in restraunts and then later in cust service, and then finally in financial industry did NOT build their own system.

 

So gotta disagree on your assumption,

 

Ill agree building your own the best way to go, but its not the most common by a long shot.

[Dhruin]

Buy a console and a game and you can play. buy a vid card and a game and welp, you now have a vid card and a game on your shelf (still need the computer, ram, ect). There is a huge price difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of your cost argument is premised on this but it's a little misleading for many people. Most people need a PC of some sort for study, work, internet, whatever. The only significant additional expense is a video card. Take the PC I already need, add a $200 video card, perhaps $50 worth of RAM and I'm good to go.

 

I can get a decent three years out of this without changes and PC components are getting cheaper all the time.

 

Going further, I can potentially play for free depending on my tastes - older abandoned titles, indies, mods, online gaming. If I buy (say) an Xbox, I have to play for Xbox Live for any online content at all and there's nothing like the range of options.

 

Anyway, horses for courses. The kicker for me will always be there simply aren't many games of interest - there's a whole one "western" RPG I've missed out on (Jade Empire), no space traders etc etc.

[Missy]

Interestingly, all the PC gamers I know have built their own PCs at one point or another, or had a friend build for them.

[Walsingham]

Meta made oblique reference to one point which is that a PC is a work tool as well. I use mine for gaming, surfing the web, but mainly for making money. Thus the costs of running and upgrading it are offset against the money I make using it. If I do THAT then even by the most conservartive estimates it has paid for itself many times over. A console is only ever going to cost you money. It can't possibly make it.

[alanschu]

I'm going to agree with the assertion that PC Gamers for the most part do build their own computers.