The Great BD PC vs Console Debate

[Justsomebloke]

Most that PC game though already have PC's & are only upgrading.

[divine]

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?

Not really, especially when you take into account recurring costs like Live subscriptions etc. that could go into upgrading the PC later.

Cost wise, with a PC, you are infinitely better off buying a £600 PC and then spending £200 in 3 years time refreshing the graphics card and adding some RAM or something, than you are buying an £800 PC to begin with, which is probably the mistake a lot of people make. What £200 buys in you in improvements now is rubbish compared to what £200 buys in upgrades later if you should feel your PC can't handle something.

The only thing my PC hasn't been able to manage so far is Crysis, which is more because it was a crap engine than actually needs a better PC.

[Daz]

Originally Posted by divine

Not really, especially when you take into account recurring costs like Live subscriptions etc. that could go into upgrading the PC later.

I keep seeing you mention Live subs, and I'm not sure how drastic an impact they have. They don't apply to the PS3 of course, and it's not that expensive. To take your 3 years graphics upgrade cost, £200 would get you 8 years of Live gold, for example.

I mention it because, like MB by the sounds of it, cost (or perceived cost) would be the number one factor keeping me from returning to PC gaming properly. Close second would be distinct lack of games, but there's not a lot we can debate on that

My current PC has a lot of compute power, and some graphics kick (8600GT). My PS2 was an active gaming platform (at least in my house) for 6 years, so lets pretend I'm looking at a new gaming platform to invest in.

My current workstation isn't upgradable, so I'm looking at £600 for an above average PC rig, with ~£200 upgrade every 3 years. So over a 6 year lifespan, that's £1000.

I buy a 360, £150. Lets make it fair and take a price point earlier in it's life cycle, ~£200 last Christmas for what was the premium? 6 years gold subs, another £150. And lets say £100 on peripherals - an extra pad, chatpad, vision camera, play and charge kit (being a bit generous on the spend there). 6 years gaming for £450, less than half the PC. Hell, throw in £300 for a PC to do web browsing and word processing on (though I'd argue that's unnecessary, as we're talking strictly gaming platforms), we're still cheaper.

If I'm wrong then please correct me, I'm genuinely interested.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by Davey_Pitch

Weirdo If I see the game through the eyes of a character - First Person. If I can see all my character - 3rd person. Simple as that for me

Not at all, the game may be from a 3rd person view, but the game plays as a First Person. It needs its own name sadly, but a lot gets lost.

It plays more like a generic FPS than a generic 3PS such as Tomb Raider or Resident Evil.

[divine]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

I'm not throwing out accusations or random points, I'm talking from experience. As I said, my last 2 GPU's before this were £415 and £425 respectively and they DID NOT last 2 or 3 years from that date, let alone getting a cheap one to fit into a full £500 solution alone that will last that long.

I went and got this 7800GTX second hand for £25 from Streeteh off this forums and it serves its purpose for net browsing etc.. but game performance just is not good enough.

Well, honestly if you're spending £425 on a graphics card and replacing it in a year, that's your problem because it's entirely pointless. You get about 5% more performance than one half the price at the time and in a year they both perform as near as damnit the same.

Besides, graphics cards have got a lot cheaper recently.

[NokkonWud]

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.

I'm not throwing out accusations or random points, I'm talking from experience. As I said, my last 2 GPU's before this were £415 and £425 respectively and they DID NOT last 2 or 3 years from that date, let alone getting a cheap one to fit into a full £500 solution alone that will last that long.

I went and got this 7800GTX second hand for £25 from Streeteh off this forums and it serves its purpose for net browsing etc.. but game performance just is not good enough.

Originally Posted by divine

Not really, especially when you take into account recurring costs like Live subscriptions etc. that could go into upgrading the PC later.

Not really, Xbox Live costs 7.3p a day. .
I don't class £27 a year as expensive, and you don't have to buy it all in one go. It's also not needed if you don't play online.

Originally Posted by iCraig

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.

Top end? The top end graphics cards are £500. 24" w/s monitor is £350+.

Yes, stuff like Memory has dropped in price, but stuff like GPU's and Mobo's are still expensive for the good stuff. My Mobo was £130 and Memory £180 when I upgraded 2.5 years ago.

Originally Posted by divine

Well, honestly if you're spending £425 on a graphics card and replacing it in a year, that's your problem because it's entirely pointless. You get about 5% more performance than one half the price at the time and in a year they both perform as near as damnit the same.

Besides, graphics cards have got a lot cheaper recently.

I never said I replaced it 'the next year', however what I stated is that it never lasted 3 years. I bought my first one for £415 and 6 months later I was already knocking down a lot of settings in games. I didn't mind. After spending more the second time though it really bothered me though as I was already knocking settings down the minute it was in my PC.

[divine]

Originally Posted by Daz

If I'm wrong then please correct me, I'm genuinely interested.

You seem to be missing an HDTV in there, so you can play at a resolution higher than 576p, after all, we wouldn't want to have it not looking the 'best it can' would we?

[divine]

I still defy anyone to tell me that the screenshot I posted looks crap and that therefore this PC is an unviable gaming machine.

[NokkonWud]

But HDTV's will be needed for the switch over anyway and are common in many houses, not just those with consoles. PC monitors are just for PC's.

[Daz]

Originally Posted by divine

You seem to be missing an HDTV in there, so you can play at a resolution higher than 576p, after all, we wouldn't want to have it not looking the 'best it can' would we?

You didnt put a monitor on your original £600:

Originally Posted by divine

£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

But hey, call it a £200 monitor for use with either. I'm talking about the platform, you could put a 20" monitor or a 47" TV on either and the cost would be the same.

Please, explain it to me. Talk me back to PC gaming.

[edit]

Originally Posted by divine

I still defy anyone to tell me that the screenshot I posted looks crap and that therefore this PC is an unviable gaming machine.

Hope that wasnt aimed at me, because I'm not arguing that. In fact I'm not arguing anything, I'm just putting forward the landscape as I see it and why it's turned me to consoles, so please correct me. Break it down.