The Great BD PC vs Console Debate

[NokkonWud]

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.

It's an old engine that I've never rated anyway. It doesn't look 'bad' in that that engine doesn't really look any better, but in comparison to many other games it doesn't look that good.

When I loaded it up after playing Fallout 3, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Fable 2 and FarCry 2 (the games I've played just before L4D), Left 4 Dead looked by far the poorest (though still better than I thought from the Source engine). And I could list over 15 things with that image that I don't like, but you'd hate me forever.

[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.

[divine]

Why would you want to play your 360 through a small monitor though, that defeats the entire 'I can sit in my lounge with my huge screen' argument before it's even begun.

The trouble with the PC is quantifying what the gaming components comprises. Personally, my PC is foremost an image editing tool, then a work tool, then a games tool. So for me, only about £200 worth of the investment was tailored towards games, the rest I would have had anyway.

A console probably is cheaper overall but by the end of that life you have the same problem as your non upgraded PC, the games aren't looking as good as stuff running on the latest tech, except with the PC a bit of additional spend can bump back up close, whereas it's time for you to get a whole new system soon.

I just take issue with the notion that PC gaming costs 'into the £1000s' every year. It doesn't. Spent sensibly, £600 can last you 3 years happily unless you have a massive desire to always have the latest graphics card even though it's probably entirely unnecessary. It probably is more expensive, but not nearly as much as some people tried to make out earlier. £425 on a graphics card is frivilous and never a sensible idea and trying to use things like that as an argument for why PC gaming is so expensive is silly, it's just a demonstration of (imo, stupid) personal spending habits.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

Why would you want to play your 360 through a small monitor though, that defeats the entire 'I can sit in my lounge with my huge screen' argument before it's even begun.

I was on about buying a screen for a 'top end' PC. I never mentioned a small monitor for the Xbox360.

Originally Posted by divine

A console probably is cheaper overall but by the end of that life you have the same problem as your non upgraded PC, the games aren't looking as good as stuff running on the latest tech, except with the PC a bit of additional spend can bump back up close, whereas it's time for you to get a whole new system soon.

Because consoles are a finite hardware setup the games in 5 years time actually look a lot better than those at launch. Games continually look better. Just look at the PS2, it released God of War 2 and Shadow of the Colossus which blew away anything else on that system. Let us not forget that by the end of a consoles lifespan it's successor has often been out a while anyway.

Originally Posted by divine

I just take issue with the notion that PC gaming costs 'into the £1000s' every year. It doesn't. Spent sensibly, £600 can last you 3 years happily unless you have a massive desire to always have the latest graphics card even though it's probably entirely unnecessary. It probably is more expensive, but not nearly as much as some people tried to make out earlier. £425 on a graphics card is frivilous and never a sensible idea and trying to use things like that as an argument for why PC gaming is so expensive is silly, it's just a demonstration of (imo, stupid) personal spending habits.

No one said it costs £1000's every year.
You call it stupid, but do you know what I do? Did you think to ask why I spent so much?

[divine]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

I was on about buying a screen for a 'top end' PC. I never mentioned a small monitor for the Xbox360.

I was replying to someone else saying that you don't need a TV for a console, to just use the same monitor you would get for a PC.

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

Because consoles are a finite hardware setup the games in 5 years time actually look a lot better than those at launch. Games continually look better. Just look at the PS2, it released God of War 2 and Shadow of the Colossus which blew away anything else on that system. Let us not forget that by the end of a consoles lifespan it's successor has often been out a while anyway.

They might look better than other games on the same system yes but pale in comparison to stuff on newer systems, which was the point.

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

No one said it costs £1000's every year.
You call it stupid, but do you know what I do? Did you think to ask why I spent so much?

Actually, someone said exactly that.
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.

[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.

[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.

[luke]

pc i my choice

kb&m is the only option imho for a fps

but i'm a hardware and overclocking whore. for me gaming is ace but i love clocking my 8800gtx/watercooled c2d rig to notice a visible increase in smoothness and constant framrate. i love the fact you have to mess with video settings to find a good balance of quality graphics and speed of frames. pc gaming is very much for the modding enthusiasts and that is why i love it, as turning on an xbox and putting the disk in is just not enough for me

[iCraig]

The easiest way to settle the cost argument is to do a "start from scratch" scenario.

A gamer wanting to start with PC gaming. He doesn't own a PC, or monitor, speakers etc, so it's from the beginning.

A gamer wanting to start with console gaming. He doesn't own a console or a TV so it's from the beginning.

Two specifications of the essentials, what you need from either side to play the games properly. In PC terms it's a well equipped PC capable of high resolution, seamless high detail gaming and any peripherals for that. A decent mouse and usb combo, nice sized monitor etc. In console land it's a well equipped console and any neccessary peripherals (second controller and xbox live headset is must really?) as well as a TV capable of displaying the console's output in its high resolution, high detail display.

If there's anywhere more than £100 between them, it's probably safe to say one is cheaper than the other. Less than £100 and it's not enough to significantly show that cost is a real issue.

[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.

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.

To take my PC for example, when I bought it, I had a choice between an X800XT for like £300 or an X800XL for £175. I went with the XL. Interestingly, when I got to Uni (that's why I was buying one to start with) there was a guy with virtually the same spec PC with a slightly slower CPU (3200+ vs 3500+) but with the X800XT. Initially, his PC would be able to wind the setting up a bit more than mine but come mid way through the second year, getting newer games, my XL began to catch up as the 'scale' of performance was getting squashed and his 20FPS advantage 18 months before was now closer to 5FPS.

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