The Great BD PC vs Console Debate

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

Yeah but a TV is something that needs to be considered just as much of a cost to a console

It seems that the only reason it "needs to be considered" is so that you can try and make a point that doesn't exist, stick.

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.

I completely disagree. That's like saying a 79p toilet duck freshener can't be classed as cheap because you had to pay £100 for the bog in the first place.

My point is that a TV is a common place item in homes, a PC monitor simply is not. Consoles are made to use TV's and not the other way around, this is not the case with a PC and a monitor. Much how a toilet is common place in a house and so any extra's don't need the price of the toilet to be included.

[divine]

Well Crysis doesn't work on anything, because it was coded by monkeys. You could spend £10k on a PC and Crysis will barely break 60fps, Stalker I don't know, i've not tried it but it's not a game that ever interested me.

Running games at 1920x1200 is a very high demand though, something consoles don't have to compete with considering they mostly render much lower and upscale. Demanding that games run at the absolute highest settings possible and then complaining that its expensive to do so is a bit besides the point.

[divine]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

It seems that the only reason it "needs to be considered" is so that you can try and make a point that doesn't exist, stick.

Have fun playing your 360 without a TV then
You seem to be trying to deny it to pretend that to go gaming with a console only costs you £300 once off.

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

I completely disagree. That's like saying a 79p toilet duck freshener can't be classed as cheap because you had to pay £100 for the bog in the first place.

My point is that a TV is a common place item in homes, a PC monitor simply is not. Consoles are made to use TV's and not the other way around, this is not the case with a PC and a monitor. Much how a toilet is common place in a house and so any extra's don't need the price of the toilet to be included.

I'd say for anyone contemplating buying a gaming PC anyway, they're likely to have a PC already and you seem to be completely ignoring the aspect of the gaming elements just being additions to the basic PC anyway.

You're hardly just going to go without a PC at all, if you don't get a gaming tailored one are you?

A TV may be commonplace, an HD one is not. Maybe amongst techheads on forums like OcUK they are, elsewhere they definitely are not. But then you're playing low res and getting inferior visuals, so that nullifies your arguments about graphics cards being defunct because they cant play stuff at 1920x1200.

[Aboobie]

What I think, and don't shoot me here, is that those pushing PC gaming are maybe mainly still in a bedroom? And if you're limited to just your bedroom, I can understand wanting to PC game. Heck, I used to.

When I became a home owner with full access to the main room, sofa, big TV, 5.1, there was a natural pull towards wanting to move my gaming there, and a sense of freedom from being able to.

If we were to argue PC vs small LCD & 360 next to said PC, I can genuinely see a good debate, if we're talking PC in the corner of the dining room vs large TV in the lounge I really can't.

[divine]

Basically, what i'm trying to get across is that you need to consider alternatives and how that affects the costs.

A £600 gaming PC hasn't really 'cost' £600 unless the alternative is just not having a PC at all is it? If you would already have spent £300 on a lesser specced PC for general usage, then it's really only cost £300 over the alternative hasn't it? In this case, the £300 on higher specced parts over the basic ones is the cost to game.

With a console, you either buy it or you don't. There isn't a halfway point like with a PC, you can't get an XBox 180 that doesn't play games for example. So in this case, the price of the console is the price of the ability to game.

This is why I feel it is unfair to lump the whole cost of the PC in comparison to a console, because very very very rarely is a PC ever bought solely for just playing games on and never used for anything like working, or socialising etc.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

Running games at 1920x1200 is a very high demand though, something consoles don't have to compete with considering they mostly render much lower and upscale. Demanding that games run at the absolute highest settings possible and then complaining that its expensive to do so is a bit besides the point.

I never said it had to be at it's "absolute highest". I said it didn't play them at a standard I deemed acceptable.

Originally Posted by divine

Have fun playing your 360 without a TV then
You seem to be trying to deny it to pretend that to go gaming with a console only costs you £300 once off.

The concept that most people ALREADY own a TV seems to continually go over your head. Everyone I've ever known in my 24 years on this earth has owned a Television. Consoles can be played on those.

Not one single person in my 24 years has already owned a monitor.

[Oly-593]

I game on my PC, although I'm not really a massive gamer anyway and thats probably why I don't bother with consoles.

The games I do play are 99% FPS, so the PC is generally the best option here and the whole PC 'thing' is a bit of a hobby as well.

My PC is an all in multimedia rig connected up to my HDTV and Hi-Fi amp and I like the fact that I can do everything with it from recording TV, web, office, to playing games without having to switch to another appliance.

[divine]

Just as you feel your point about already having a TV is going over my head, I feel the same about your total ignorance to my point that the cost of a gaming PC is deferred by the fact you'd have to be spending a lot of the cost anyway to get a regular PC.

The way I see it, if you want to lump the whole cost of the PC in, you should add the TV to the console too. If you don't want to include the TV, fine, but then it's only fair to acknowledge the gaming elements of a PC don't comprise the entire cost of the PC.

I'm trying to visualise them on as level a field as possible yet it feels like you're trying to have your cake and eat it somewhat by only including the 'gaming relevant' necessities of one method but not the other.

[NokkonWud]

That's definitely the good side of PC's (though all that you mentioned can be done on PS3), and I can understand how PC's can be a hobby, I've been there and it's great fun when you get a University loan in and you splash out. I guess now that I've finished University I can see how stupid it all was and that it really wasn't disposable after all

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

Just as you feel your point about already having a TV is going over my head, I feel the same about your total ignorance to my point that the cost of a gaming PC is deferred by the fact you'd have to be spending a lot of the cost anyway to get a regular PC.

If you want to up the power from a 'standard' PC to a gaming PC you are incurring, often, the cost of a new Motherboard (as was the case for me, going 775 from 939 and DDR to DDR2), Memory, CPU, Graphics Card, Sound Card and Power Supply. By the time you get the gamers goods you're as near as dammit buying a whole PC anyway, you're only keeping the case and drives and also, if you're happy with standard sound, that too, which is why I never felt the need to respond.