PCs and the cost of gaming

[Kalfear]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats true Wals, but the question is how many people (that play games) TRUELY are employed in an industry that requires them to use their home computer for work?

 

I know I NEVER use mine for work when I was licenced as a financial Consultant. always used work computers as they were linked to the proper databases. (course also cant say I met a whole lotta gamers in that industry either)

 

Freind is a teacher and he uses his home computer for work but fully admits if it wasnt for games he would never have to upgrade as all the programs he uses for work could easily run on a old 486 with 64megs ram and a printer.

 

Anouther freind manages a restraunt. All he uses his computer for (regarding work) is spreedsheets (again, no need to upgrade).

 

Hell my brother is a programmer by trade and my gaming system totally blows away his home computer on every aspect. Why? because he doesnt game.

 

Sure there are proffessions that do require constantly upgraded home computers but by and far I dont think they are as abundant as some posters on this board make them out to be. average joe (who doesnt game) could run a older $200.00 system with a internet connection and a printer and get by easily with no troubles what so ever.

[Hurlshort]

I'm a teacher and I use it often enough for work. The internet is the real valuable point, and you can't use the internet effectively on a 486 anymore. I also use it to get directions, to find information...I mean I can list its uses for hours. The fact is, it's very different than a console.

[Missy]

While it is true that people can use less up to date PCs for work, there are still a great number of people that need to have fairly current hardware for their work. I use my laptop and PC for work and there are certain specifications that I am required to meet - my current set up exceeds these definitely, but because the work involves use of MS Office, and websites of varying degrees of complexity - some flash, some more basic - I need to be able to run a browser, outlook, word, MSN messenger etc all at once without too many hiccups.

 

Gaming is the major driving force for upgrades certainly, but then there are other applications that benefit also - I know several people that use their home PCs for graphic design, website design, programming and most of them are non-gamers.

[metadigital]

I need a very good pc for my work (IT consultant), hence I have an IBM laptop (credibility in the first 90 seconds of meeting, etc). Also, IBM (well, they are Chinese Lenovo, now) make the best batteries and are in the top percentile for all their components (sold their harddrive business to Hitachi a while back, so they just rebrand the best). Only downside is they cost a bomb, but it's all on business lease / three year depreciation cycle, so I don't even notice it. :D

[Dhruin]

Sure there are proffessions that do require constantly upgraded home computers but by and far I dont think they are as abundant as some posters on this board make them out to be. average joe (who doesnt game) could run a older $200.00 system with a internet connection and a printer and get by easily with no troubles what so ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure, many people don't need a high-end computer for their work. But it's not as black and white as that...I couldn't count the number of people who tell me they need a basic computer only for wordprocessing -- and then five minutes later they're asking if their DV camera will plug straight in 'cause they want to compile movies of the kids and send the DVD to Grandma.

 

Some people never use a computer and some only ever do some wordprocessing but don't underestimate the number of people downloading music, movies, photo editing, video editing...and then all they need is a decent video card and they are game ready. I'm sure there's plenty of people still using a 486 but I bet it's often an overstatement, because that 486 is going to struggle to run a browser with the encryption to do basic internet banking, so they might say they only need a 486 but it often isn't really true.

[alanschu]

Actually I'd bet that 486 processors are quite rare.

 

Maybe some slower Pentiums, but even then you'll find those are pretty rare.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Actually I'd bet that 486 processors are quite rare.

 

Maybe some slower Pentiums, but even then you'll find those are pretty rare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

486?? Those things still exist? I shouldn't say too much since I still have a good old 200Mhz computer laying around the house.

[Diamond]

486?? Those things still exist?

Yes, I have one glued to the wall above my desk.

[metadigital]

486?? Those things still exist?

Yes, I have one glued to the wall above my desk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think there are many people in the developed countries using old PCs: after all, they wouldn't be able to run Windows 95, let alone any OS newer.

 

I did hear about a recycling project whereby Singapore Airlines took possession of (I think thy might have even been 286s , it was more than a decade ago) old hardware to use in their company network as terminals.

 

I used to have a "luggable" Compaq AT, one of the elongated cylinders with the amber screen built in and the keyboard forming the lid when it closed. Must have weighed twenty kg. I think it's still around somewhere ...

[Kasoroth]

486?? Those things still exist?

Yes, I have one glued to the wall above my desk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think there are many people in the developed countries using old PCs: after all, they wouldn't be able to run Windows 95, let alone any OS newer.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually I recently discovered my old 386 motherboard and CPU (Am386DX/40 with math co-processor) and a pile of old 30 pin SIMMs. I filled all 8 slots with 4MB modules (It originally had 4 1MB modules) and pulled an old 420 MB hard drive from a junked PC (early pentium) at work.

 

I put it all together, and aside from the BIOS battery being dead and not storing settings when the system is powered off, it booted fine to the Win95 installation on the hard drive. It had an old ISA 1MB Trident SVGA card that was horribly slow, but capable of running 800x600 in 8-bit color mode. I tried installing Win98 on it, but the installer refused to run on anything less than a 486. I wanted to try installing it on a newer PC and then transferring the hard drive to see if I could get Win98 to run on the 386, but I misplaced my motivation somewhere along the way and never finished that experiment.

 

OK, back to the real topic of the thread:

Most of the PC gamers I know either build their own systems or ask me (or another knowledgeable friend) to build them a system. If you compare the costs of console systems to a high end Dell (or other pre-built) gaming PC, then yes, the console is probably significantly cheaper, but that's not really a fair comparison.

 

I could buy an X-box and try to sell it on Ebay with a starting bid of $2000 dollars, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the argument that X-boxes cost $2000 dollars. Likewise, I could build an awesome gaming PC and sell it on Ebay with a "buy it now" price of $1, but this doesn't give credibility to the argument that high end gaming PCs only cost $1.

 

When comparing prices, the only fair way to do it is to compare the lowest prices available to the general public (not special case prices limited to a small sub-segment of the population). If the ability to build your own PC was unavailable to the general public, and only feasible for people working in the PC industry, then build-it-yourself prices would not be a fair comparison, but this is not the case at all.

 

Building your own PC is not exclusive or difficult. The information necessary is commonly available, and most people probably know someone who is capable of doing it, or could easily learn to do it themselves from the internet. Some people would rather pay a lot of extra money for the convenience of having Dell (etc) plug in a few cards, mount a few drives (which often doesn't even require a screwdiver on newer cases) and install Windows (which is mostly an exercise in pressing "Next" and waiting), but I don't think it's fair to include this extra cost in a price comparison between PCs and consoles.

 

There are a few points that I think are relevant to the cost argument:

1) The console gaming market is fragmented between multiple incompatible platforms (MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc). These proprietary platforms often fight for "exclusives" meaning that game developers are often encouraged NOT to make cross-platform releases, and even without these exculsivity agreements, the cost of porting between consoles results in many games being released for only 1 console system, and few games are released for all of the major console systems. This means that to play all console games you really need 3 consoles.

 

2) Most people need or would like to have a PC for non-gaming purposes (word processing, image/video editing, storing the thousands of pictures they take with their digital cameras, storing all their mp3s, web access, email, etc).

 

Let's assume the following costs:

Good built-it-yourself gaming PC = $1200.

Cheap PC for non-gaming use = $400

New console system = $300

 

I have intentionally left the TV/monitor out of the pricing because that's very hard to compare fairly. You could put an extremely expensive HDTV on a console or a PC, or you could use a cheap TV/monitor on either.

 

If you buy the 3 major console systems and a cheap non-gaming PC, that's $1300

If you buy the gaming PC, that's $1200

Now when you buy games, the PC games are generally cheaper than the console games because game developers have to pay license fees to the console manufacturer to offset the fact that the console hardware is often sold at a very slim profit margin, or even a loss (particularly in the early stages of the console's life cycle).

 

The comparison from the consumer point of view is made more difficult by the fact that some games are console exclusive and some are PC exclusive, so if you really want to play them all you need the gaming PC and all three consoles. This is NOT a good situation for consumers. This "competition" in the console market between different incompatible platforms is like the "competition" between Beta and VHS when VCRs first came out.

 

The consumers (and game developers for that matter) win out when there is competition within a standardized platform rather than competition between incompatible platforms. The Intel vs AMD competition is good because it gives buyers a choice of CPUs within the x86 platform. If AMD raises their prices and/or lowers their quality, I can switch to Intel for my next PC and still use all the same software as before. Console users do not get the same benefit from the competition between Sony and MS because the platforms are both proprietary.

 

Currently the vast majority of PC games are released for the Windows platform, but various Linux developers are trying to create Linux implementations of the Windows APIs, so that the proprietary Windows de facto standard can esentially become an open standard and thus give consumers the benefit of competition between Windows and Linux as competitors within a standard platform rather than between two incompatible platforms. MS is not pleased with these attempts, and would like them to fail, because the fact that Windows is the de facto standard is one of the primary reasons that many people who don't like Windows still continue to use it (I am included in this group of people).

 

-Kasoroth

Edited November 13, 2005 by Kasoroth

[Walsingham]

Wow. Kasoroth I didn't think I'd be able to read a post that long, but I did. Kudos.

 

I'd agree pretty much with what you said. But at the same time while people might be technically capable of building their PCs [if one factors in techie friends as you rightly do], the awareness of that is so poor it doesn't really count. however, this may improve.

 

The most interesting part of your post for me was the move to open source OS. The problem there is the availability of games in those OS. Didn't the sole Linux games developer go bust this year? Otherwise I'd say you were spot on.

 

~~~

 

Other posts, I run along with the rejoinders. Yes technically you can write on an old PC. My dear old dad does on a 233Mhz pentium. And he bitches constantly about the performance, while insisting it is fine. If he wants to receive a file it takes forever. He can't run Excel and Word at the same time as being online. He can't conveniently include pictures into his work. The list goes on. I recently discovered he had been achieving part-way passable performacne for a while by turning off all his protection ...then of course falling down due to spyware.

 

The difference, as I have discovered between

 

- a fully serviceable working home PC, that lets you produce genuinely first class photos/presentations/papers, while holding your music and showing films;

 

- a gaming PC is the graphics card. Which is at mid-range about 90 UKP.

 

~~~

 

I accept that there are people who don't have day jobs that can use a PC, but if they are really living then they can use the PC for education, art, and oddjobs and hobbies. You really can't do any of that with a console. A games console games.

[Hurlshort]

Not to play the devil's advocate here, but let's remember that most consoles drop under $200 very quickly. I think it's about a year before the price dips, but I could be wrong. But yeah, they just don't compare to PC's.

 

Although being a PC gamer does take more knowledge about hardware and sotware. On a console you are pretty much guaranteed the game will run as soon as you pop it in, but PC's can often require tinkering to run properly.

 

Honestly though, you can't really compare a console to a PC. The PC just brings too much else to the table. The Xbox and PS2 are glorified DVD players and the Gamecube is a toy. PC's aren't just toys.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, Kasoroth is a smart cookie. What he nails on the head, and I've seen this elsewhere, is that my computer is not confined to gaming. For example, I work on my laptop and virtually never game on it. I both work and game on my desktop, but there will be long stretches where I don't game on it at all. I have an xbox, but even that spends far more time pulling duty as my stereo.

 

So, the console that wins me will probably not prevail because of the games. It will prevail because of the hardware and the quality of sound and picture. That way I can use it to play the occassional game and I won't be forced to buy a stereo.

 

Even if you have enough money to buy all three, and we do, we're not going to take up the space in our house to buy three consoles. It's just not in the cards.

[Hurlshort]

I tend to buy a console, hold on to it for a year or two, then trade it in and buy another one. EB and Gamestop give you like $50 for them, plus all the games and controllers, which really takes a bite out of the initial cost. Doing this, I've owned every major console in recent years. Of course, some things stink, like the fact I owned the PS2 when no RPG's were coming out, and now that I have an Xbox, a new PS2 exclusive RPG comes out every month.

[zer"0"]

As far back as I can remember... PC gaming and upgrading have always gone hand in hand. Especially if you wanted to stay at the cutting edge.

 

I remember how cool it was when I saw 3D in Quake2 the first time.

Or when I got that CPU upgrade and all my old games were running too fast.

 

Know that feeling of playing the latest game on your friend's fully

decked-out system? Or vice-versa and inviting people over to check out some spectacle?

 

The technology is part of the fun. imho.

 

I can appreciate others' point of view though. Having a top of the line PC today costs a bit. Though if you know where to buy and when, you can get a up-to-spec PC for 2-3 years, allowing to play all the latest.

 

Consoles are less of a hassle technically. Personally, I find most console games over-priced and mediocre. Still rentals are a valid option if you like console games and prefer true plug-and-play.

 

My point? I guess its: "Different strokes for different folks!"

[Deraldin]

The technology is part of the fun. imho.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another good point. For some people (myself included), the tinkering with hardware is half the fun in owning a pc. :cool:

[Walsingham]

I've yet to get into tinkering. But the more I learn, and the more I earn, the more I want to.

[alanschu]

Tinkering is fun.

 

I think it's a guy thing though

 

 

EDIT: I cannot speel

Edited November 14, 2005 by alanschu

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Anyone who can plug something in can build a computer. The place where you need advice really is what to put into it.

 

If you already need a PC for something else, then having one that plays games isnt such a big deal. If however you only use your PC for basic things, then you may as well buy a console.

[Gabrielle]

Even I can replace video and soundcards. "

[metadigital]

Actually I'd bet that 486 processors are quite rare.

Maybe some slower Pentiums, but even then you'll find those are pretty rare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

386s are the chips that have been implanted into all the "intelligent" home objects, like refridgerators and irons.

[Gabrielle]

Actually I'd bet that 486 processors are quite rare.

Maybe some slower Pentiums, but even then you'll find those are pretty rare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

386s are the chips that have been implanted into all the "intelligent" home objects, like refridgerators and irons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the military.

[alanschu]

Actually I'd bet that 486 processors are quite rare.

Maybe some slower Pentiums, but even then you'll find those are pretty rare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

386s are the chips that have been implanted into all the "intelligent" home objects, like refridgerators and irons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Correction: 486 processors [in personal computers] are likely quite rare.

 

 

I know the original 68k processor still lingers around. It was the sound chip on the Dreamcast.