The Great BD PC vs Console Debate

[Daz]

Originally Posted by divine

It's not so much the need for it but if you're going to eliminate the TV part from it, all the arguments about playing on a nice huge TV and having the experience vs 'being hunched over a desk' all fly out the window.

Aye maybe. Perhaps its just me, I have the space now so I dont want to play in my office or work in my lounge, so I separate the two.

Originally Posted by divine

I'm not trying to say a PC is categorically cheaper than a console but I think the PCs costs get exagerrated by people picking on the typical gear whore who pisses £500 up the wall on the latest extreme edition CPU, then 2 months later when a 200MHz faster one comes out, does it again. But none of that is essential for decent PC gaming and buying sensible value for money components rather than the bleeding edge overpriced ones that provide little to no extra speed after a year is actually really not a hugely expensive way to go about things.

Hell, just be thankful we picked the 360 to compare to mostly, rather than PS Triple. Yo. Ballin.

Well, the live subs of the 360 offset the extra cost of the Playstation, but I agree, lets not go there

We seem to agree that console gaming is cheaper than mid-range pc gaming, and while the costs aren't staggering like when compared to high end pc fanboyism, I believe they're noticeable.

Any extra quality in the experience wouldn't make me jump back, however if the PC had a far superior game library to what it does currently, the combination would better justify the cost difference.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

I have no idea why you spent so much but if it was a reason other than so you had a personal gaming computer then it's not really relevant is it? You just presented the argument of "It's expensive, I had to spend £425 on graphics to run games", it's a bit pointless saying that if you're now going to say there was another reason why you actually had that card.

What I said was that I owned a £425 graphics card and a by product of it, which was playing games (though not the only reason) was that it didn't last as long as I would have liked.
Whether or not it was bought purely for games isn't the point, my point was that I had that graphics card and it didn't last as long as this "2-3 years" comment that I hear all the time.

[Belmit]

I switched to consoles because the PC has a web browser and the temptation to quit out and fap was too great.


But seriously.

I used to only play PC games, upgrading a few components occasionally, then buying a whole new system every three years or so, selling the old one off as a non-gaming rig to a friend or family member who just wanted a quick, cheap PC. In 2004 I built a whole new up-to-date system with a £900 interest-free loan from work and it worked great for all the new games and made my old games look better as I no longer had to ramp the settings down. I still cringe a little when I think I spent £350 of that on an X800 (considering I paid that for my 360 on release day), but I wouldn't change those gaming hours for the same on the equivalent console at the time.

Only a year later I was finding most games still played OK - the Half-life episodes still used the same engine so played and looked great, for example - but some really didn't. FEAR was practically unplayable, and having only just paid that loan off six months prior I was in no mood for any more upgrades. In December '05 I bought a 360 and haven't touched the PC since (aside from a few brief CS sessions with BDers back in the day, and STALKER which I'd had on pre-order @ £17 for almost three years). I've probably spent less than a grand over those three years, and solely on games. Luckily I already had an HDTV simply because I needed a new TV and had no room for a big tube.

As far as I'm concerned, it felt right for me using a PC up until that switchover, and it has felt right playing consoles since. This is in terms of (variously and variably) enjoyability, economics, my social and physical situation, change in lifestyle, and convenience. I've no regrets, except maybe spending out so much on my last PC, considering it now sits under my desk gathering dust due to my Mac now being my main computer.

FPSs will always play better on a keyboard and mouse but since buying a console I've broadened the genres of games I play.

And that's my little story of why this argument is fruitless.

Until they release a browser for the 360, godammit.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

It's not so much the need for it but if you're going to eliminate the TV part from it, all the arguments about playing on a nice huge TV and having the experience vs 'being hunched over a desk' all fly out the window.

Not at all. Most houses in the country have a TV whether they have a games console or not. That's because TV is primarily for watching Television shows, consoles were made to connect to these. With the switchover happening and the cost of HDTV's dropping they are becoming common place. Heck, my 70+ year old grandparents have a 42" Pioneer plasma screen.

A PC monitor is purely for using a PC on and very few people would actually own one without owning a PC.

That's where that argument falls on its face.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by Belmit

Until they release a browser for the 360, godammit.

Incredible oversight really considering Microsoft could easily use Internet Explorer.

[divine]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

Not at all. Most houses in the country have a TV whether they have a games console or not. That's because TV is primarily for watching Television shows, consoles were made to connect to these. With the switchover happening and the cost of HDTV's dropping they are becoming common place. Heck, my 70+ year old grandparents have a 42" Pioneer plasma screen.

A PC monitor is purely for using a PC on and very few people would actually own one without owning a PC.

That's where that argument falls on its face.

Similarly though, most people will have or be buying a PC anyway for going on the internet, word processing, music, photographs and a myriad of other things so moving from the realms of a standard PC to a gaming PC eliminates a huge chunk of the cost too.

You can't use the argument that everyone would already have an HDTV (and how many people really do, that dont have it for a console, seeing as virtually nothing else provides HD content bar bluray players and silly expensive sky/virgin packages) and then pretend like they wouldn't have the PC anyway.

[divine]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

What I said was that I owned a £425 graphics card and a by product of it, which was playing games (though not the only reason) was that it didn't last as long as I would have liked.
Whether or not it was bought purely for games isn't the point, my point was that I had that graphics card and it didn't last as long as this "2-3 years" comment that I hear all the time.

Well, I spent £175 on a slightly slower rival of the time and it did last me 3 years. If you immediately bin hardware as soon as you can't set everything to max then of course it won't last you but then we're back to needlessly spending to achieve something that isn't required, just desired. I only upgraded to my 8800 for CoD4 on my 20" widescreen, everything else i had thrown at my X800XL was fine really. It didn't need replacing in the slightest and I find it hard to believe your 6800GT needed replacing so soon, seeing as it was a faster card.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

You can't use the argument that everyone would already have an HDTV (and how many people really do, that dont have it for a console, seeing as virtually nothing else provides HD content bar bluray players and silly expensive sky/virgin packages) and then pretend like they wouldn't have the PC anyway.

What an odd comment. That's like saying "virtually nothing provides SD content bar DVD's, Terrestrial, Freeview and Sky/Virgin". You say virtually nothing provides HD content when in fact many things do, including HD downloads on PCs/consoles.

There is plenty of HD content.

I also don't really get what you're getting at with saying a monitor offsets the cost of a PC? That's not really the opposite of what I said, I just said a TV wasn't primarily for console use where as a PC monitor is solely for PC use.

[divine]

Yeah but a TV is something that needs to be considered just as much of a cost to a console as the fact you would be buying a PC anyway, offsetting much of the cost.

It's not like if someone didn't spend £600 on a gaming PC, they'd then spend nothing on no PC at all, so really, a gaming PC isn't costing all of that £600, just like a console isn't really costing all of the money you spent on the TV it uses.

You can't confine the console to just it's own material costs but then not do the same with the PC. It's just with the console it's easily definable things so it's easy to do, with a PC it's more upgraded components.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

Well, I spent £175 on a slightly slower rival of the time and it did last me 3 years. If you immediately bin hardware as soon as you can't set everything to max then of course it won't last you but then we're back to needlessly spending to achieve something that isn't required, just desired. I only upgraded to my 8800 for CoD4 on my 20" widescreen, everything else i had thrown at my X800XL was fine really. It didn't need replacing in the slightest and I find it hard to believe your 6800GT needed replacing so soon, seeing as it was a faster card.

Games just didn't work at a level I would deem acceptable, Stalker and Crysis the 2 PC exclusives that I was talking about. I also use a 24" monitor so games must run at 1920x1200 and that just wasn't possible on that 6800Ultra and still isn't on this 7800GTX on newer games.