The Great BD PC vs Console Debate

[Haly]

You lot realise this thread will just go round and round in circles, right?

[divine]

Yeah but it's better than doing work

[leowyatt]

Originally Posted by divine

You don't. You could build an entire dedicated gaming tower for £500/£600 that would look and play better than a console does and remain viable for a good 2 or 3 years.

Ok then answer me this. With your £500-600 PC, will every game look the best it can? For example no matter what 360 game I buy in the next 3 years, will look the best it can without me having to spend any extra money on hardware.

[Justsomebloke]

So many different answers to the same question & that's because it is Totally down to Personal preference/situation.

Me.
I prefer High numbers & Big maps & Mouse & keys for my FPS so PC wins hands down. I have played COD4 on 360 & PC & the 360 doesn't compare. Just the higher numbers would make me choose PC every time let alone the Mouse & Keys over a controller.
Also I personally get off on Tweaking games to run better & constantly tweaking my system, It's what I do well.
On Drivers though I have found myself taking up Single player again & have even completed a couple on the 360. I have Sims & a Momo for my PC but can't be arsed to set it up & grew sick of the Elitist BS you get surrounding PC Sim racing. On the 360 it's lovely to sit in my armchair with Only the controller & casually race online.
Being completely honest & maybe a little sad I Love my system & Enjoy my 360. I've had my 360 a full year now & it is gradually creeping into my life but my PC is everything I want it to be & more.

Please remember though I did say earlier that in my mind This Whole discussion is completly down to the individuals personal preferences & lifestyle, There is No overall winner.

[iCraig]

Originally Posted by divine

I'm still baffled by this apparent problem that you need to spend £400 on a graphics card and 'constantly update hardware' to run games on a PC. You don't. You could build an entire dedicated gaming tower for £500/£600 that would look and play better than a console does and remain viable for a good 2 or 3 years.

Once you add in long term costs such a Live sub and the fact games are typically £10-£15 more expensive on console, I don't think the PC actually works out much more expensive anyway.

Anyone who 'runs into the £1000s' every year on a PC isn't doing it through necessity, it's because they're a muppet and have no control over their money and urge to buy overpriced unnecessary hardware.

Indeed, a top-end gaming machine is what £700-800? Considering it's all from scratch, monitor, keyboard and mouse, etc? It's going to be around the same.

How much is a 360/PS3 along with essential peripherals and new (most likely high resolution) TV to play it on?

I think PC gaming has a stigma behind it due to the enthusiasts, who literally do spend thousands a year on replacement hardware/upgrades/cooling solutions etc, when in reality, you can enjoy the latest games for a lot less than people think. Especially if you already have a PC and you don't need to spend anything on basic stuff, and can focus your budget on the new performance components, such as a new board, chip, RAM and GPU.

[divine]

No it won't look the 'best it can' but then that's irrelevant if even when it isn't looking the best it can, it's still looking pretty damn good.

Just because you're not running at max settings all the time, doesn't mean it's suddenly crap and I certainly wouldn't refuse to play a game just because I can't max every setting available.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...rtment0000.jpg

Personally, I don't think that looks bad for a 3 year old PC with a pretty budget graphics upgrade a few months ago, do you? Certainly a match for the 360 version and more than good enough to be playable. (Though for some reason, maybe the way the AA is applied, that shot looks really aliased, which when actually playing it doesn't)

All your 360 games will look the 'best they can' on 5 year old hardware.

[Daz]

Would it be fair to say the usable gaming life of a ~£600 PC system would be considerably less than what would be expected from a current gen console?

[Justsomebloke]

The Money argument can be settled by using My system as an example.
My 200 quid upgrade a while back gave me

Gigabyte P35 DQ6 Mobo
Quad core, overclocked.
2 x 1950's in Crossfire.
2 Gig of Corsair XMS.
120GB Sata WD HD.
550w PSU inside a Coolermaster 7 series (Desmo I Love You )
Not found owt it won't play yet & honestly feel I still have head room over Any games requirements, With a bit of Tweaking Naturally


You don't have to buy new you know

[iCraig]

Originally Posted by Daz

Would it be fair to say the usable gaming life of a ~£600 PC system would be considerably less than what would be expected from a current gen console?

Maybe, but bear in mind once you have a "base" gaming system that performs well as it is, you have headroom to go higher. Faster graphics card, or a second one in xfire/sli, more RAM, new chip, new HDD etc. Over the course of a year or two, you'd probably spend around the same as a brand new shiny console and all its gubbins when your current one is made redundant.

If you're careful with your money on PCs and make sure you buy as future proof as possible, there's no reason why you can't having a long term gaming machine. If push comes to shove and your aging gaming rig starts to drop below 35fps on some new games, you could always reduce it from 8xAA and 16xAF to a lower setting and get even more life out of it.

[divine]

Originally Posted by iCraig

Indeed, a top-end gaming machine is what £700-800?

£550 will get you...

Q6600 + Arctic Cooling Freezer 7
4GB RAM
HD4850 512MB
DFL LanParty Intel P35 Motherboard
550W PSU
640GB WD Caviar HDD
Antec 300 Case
DVD+-RW

Then for another £200
MX518 Gaming Mouse
Saitek Eclipse Gaming Keyboard
20" Widescreen TFT