The game cost me a third of the price on the PC compared to console, I'd say PC gaming is much cheaper for me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I played Shadow of Mordor on PC. Was it prettier than the PS4 version? I don't care.
- Thread starter Abdul Hafeez
- Start date
The game cost me a third of the price on the PC compared to console, I'd say PC gaming is much cheaper for me.
Caayn
Member
Or folks re-used old parts from their previous PC, which will significantly lower the price. There's not much power needed to have a PC stronger than the current consoles.
UnrealEck
Member
I did this last year. Around August I had the choice of going console or buying a graphics card to put in the PC I already had. I went with the graphics card and it cost me less too. Plus I save on games and free online play.
I paid 30 dollars for the deluxe edition which includes the season pass. The savings for being on PC more than makes up for the extra cost of a system and frankly it's not that much more expensive to get a PC vs a console.
Moon_frogger
Member
Consoles cost less than that and their cycles last quite a bit longer. Maybe there IS something to console gaming
.
Good enough works for me. I'm sure that will change though if we start getting gtav levels of shit performance.
UnrealEck
Member
They're going to have to work some of that magical console optimisation to take over last year's PC graphics cards when they're currently struggling to keep up even well below maximum settings.
What they do have though is arguably more memory for graphics to spare than many of last year's cards (like the 770 2GB), though many are at least 3GB.
I don't think I've ever played any graphically intensive game at max settings. I usually don't even try.
On the "I'm buying the console version" thing. I've only done that in the past if I'm unsure how well my system at the time will cope and I feel safter getting a known quantity. Another thing is the resolution. I hate sub native on my PC but cope with it on console for some reason. I don't have my PC connected to the tv, perhaps thats why. If I later have a better PC I can always double dip when the games on sale. Though I do that more for back compatibility rather then better graphics.
On the "I'm buying the console version" thing. I've only done that in the past if I'm unsure how well my system at the time will cope and I feel safter getting a known quantity. Another thing is the resolution. I hate sub native on my PC but cope with it on console for some reason. I don't have my PC connected to the tv, perhaps thats why. If I later have a better PC I can always double dip when the games on sale. Though I do that more for back compatibility rather then better graphics.
sobaka770
Banned
I got the 1080p 120Hz Eizo monitor and 970GTX (which is in "affordable" price tier now) with 4690k eat through everything at max, reaching 120FPS in SC2, DotA2 and other popular games from 2-3 years ago and even Witcher 2 runs at 60 with triple buffering.
However, even if I couldn't turn on triple buffering or max AA, or Ultra Textures in Shadows of Mordor (which I can't), it's definitely not the end of the world and leaps and bounds ahead of any console game. What else is there to ask for?
However, I made a conscious choice not to go for 1440p because I want to run at least on "High" and not on "Medium" at 30 FPS. There are also games which just don't work on PC (Ubisoft!).
However, even if I couldn't turn on triple buffering or max AA, or Ultra Textures in Shadows of Mordor (which I can't), it's definitely not the end of the world and leaps and bounds ahead of any console game. What else is there to ask for?
However, I made a conscious choice not to go for 1440p because I want to run at least on "High" and not on "Medium" at 30 FPS. There are also games which just don't work on PC (Ubisoft!).
Nervous Sausage
Member
Yep, you could've easily ran it at 60fps on high even with a 2gb 680. I know I did.
Insert and play gaming.
The best thing about PC isn't that you can run games at higher resolutions, graphics settings, or framerates than the console versions. It is the ability to pick and choose exactly how you want to experience your games, including the ability to do all those things if you have a rig powerful enough.
If you want to drop down the options for better performance, go right ahead!
Console owners simply don't get a choice, they are stuck with whatever experience developers consider "good enough".
If you simply don't care, that is a choice as well. One that PC handles just fine, stick with defaults and download games through Steam. No messing about necessary.
If you want to drop down the options for better performance, go right ahead!
Console owners simply don't get a choice, they are stuck with whatever experience developers consider "good enough".
If you simply don't care, that is a choice as well. One that PC handles just fine, stick with defaults and download games through Steam. No messing about necessary.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Download and play gaming.
Alcoholikaust
Member
How come? I'm playing SOM on a GTX 970 with Ultra Textures on and installed and haven't had any issues with it, and I'm on a 2500k.
thelastword
Banned
So many people keep saying that, but Star Citizen is not impressive at all. The character models are abysmal and the animations are some of he worst I've ever seen. Give me something like the UE4 tech assassin demo and I'd say yes, but Star Citizen? oh my...
Discs are so last gen.
It is very expansive in scope to be fair. Still I would've thought the same, but the latest crop of current gen games hasn't exactly left me speechless either, for a game that's due to release in 2016 and spans an entire galaxy it's shaping up pretty fantastic looking.
Pretty sure animations and such are just placeholders and will all be updated when the FPS part of the game gets developed.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Don't really think it's the character models that are the important part of why Star Citizen looks gorgeous. It's the incredible scale and how nice the Universe looks. It's like saying Forza looks terrible because of the crowd or the driver.
This too.
They havent even started to work properly on animations or faces.
For example the first full performance capture session for Squadron 42 is planned after Christmas.
And new animation You will see in about 2 weeks in FPS module. Like a combat in zero G.
I don't feel like I'm getting the best PC experience I can. I'll rather play those games again at a later date when I have the capability to run them at the highest level and pick them up for a steal. I prefer that to playing them at a variable framerate at the highest settings, or have it run at higher framerates at subpar quality. And while there's a high chance that'll still look better than what's on one of the consoles, I don't do that.
And as for prices, while they're still twice the price than what I can get a new PC release for the least for at launch, I don't find paying 50€ (via US PSN store etc.) for a new release to be an absolute ripoff.
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I don't mind it.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I prefer the privledge and flexibility only physical games offer.
Gipsy Danger
Member
I still don't really understand it. You don't find that to be a ripoff even though it's still twice the price of the PC release? And you'd rather play the games with a lower framerate?
What about DRM free games? Do they not offer this flexibility or privilege?
And that's the part that you probably cant quite explain, can you?
You're not weird, just a bit irrational.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Consoles age just as hard as graphics cards... The only difference is that on a console you can't turn down settings to retain 60 fps.
In 5 years OP will be playing multiplatform games on medium on that gtx680 at 680 fps, ps4 games will probably be running on some high/medium mix at sub 30 fps just like what happened during this generation and it will suck just as hard.
I hate making compromises on PC. I payed more than 1000 for it so I want to max everything out at 60fps. ( I don't need a large amount of AA though )
Unfortunately due to the usual extremely poor optimization of most games on PC I'm not able to do it's just frustrating
I'll buy a PS4 and I won't have to worry about it ever again.
I also just got a Wii U and most nintendo games are at 60fps and look gorgeous.
I'll keep my PC for strategy games and such.
Unfortunately due to the usual extremely poor optimization of most games on PC I'm not able to do it's just frustrating
I'll buy a PS4 and I won't have to worry about it ever again.
I also just got a Wii U and most nintendo games are at 60fps and look gorgeous.
I'll keep my PC for strategy games and such.
Dalibor_San
Member
I wish I could be the same...well I kind of am OP however when I buy a new system MAX settings all the way.
Also F.E.A.R. 3 SLI Profile is not very effective,the rain scene tutorial area is a prime example on 2xGTX 970.
I cant wait until they release a proper SLI profile, as this workaround is not ideal.
Also F.E.A.R. 3 SLI Profile is not very effective,the rain scene tutorial area is a prime example on 2xGTX 970.
I cant wait until they release a proper SLI profile, as this workaround is not ideal.
If it's something I'd rather play on my couch, I don't mind paying the price. And as for framerate, I don't mind it, because that's more or less always been my experience on consoles. That's where I tolerate it. Call out the inconsistency, if you want, but that's just me.
Dictator93
Member
After reading the OP, this is the feeling I got to.
Too many people think that the only reason PC gaming is worth it is for running Ultra, or running better than consoles. OP shows that isnt the case. For those who have had their PC for over 5 years will know, generally you can have console like settings towards the end of a generation whilst still maintaining 1080p 60fps, which is more than enough considering some of the added bells and whistles on PC versions give you more fps drop than its worth.
jim-jam bongs
Member
What a weird thread
Gipsy Danger
Member
I hate making compromises on PC. I payed more than 1000 for it so I want to max everything out at 60fps. ( I don't need a large amount of AA though )
Unfortunately due to the usual extremely poor optimization of most games on PC I'm not able to do it's just frustrating
I'll buy a PS4 and I won't have to worry about it ever again.
I also just got a Wii U and most nintendo games are at 60fps and look gorgeous.
I'll keep my PC for strategy games and such.
Poor optimization of most games? What? Ubisoft are the only ones I can think of that are particulary notable. Apart from that it's quite rare for games to be poorly optimized on PC nowadays IMO. And you should expect to max everything out at 60fps for that price, for a little while. You can hardly expect it to last throughout an entire console generation. At least you got to max it out. Even then you shouldn't always expect it because devs sometimes put in features that are unattainable for future-proofing. It's a mind-set that people really need to get out of.
You won't have to worry about it with a PS4 but you'll also be playing at half the framerate and the visuals won't be as nice. Nintendo are godlike though and have their priorities in order.
MvmntInGrn
Member
I built a gaming PC a few years ago and stopped using it after like 6 months. I hated how much trouble I had with so many games. Games crashing and refusing to boot. Very new and very old games were a chore to set up.
So I've moved away from it. Setting your own graphic options was nice but when things would get hectic later on and my performance would drop I'd get frustrated that I now needed to lower settings. The next gen systems are treating me well enough right now. I could see myself picking up more games on PC that are a few years old. Old enough to be patched so I don't have to worry about basic booting and installing and that my PC (if I upgraded a few things) could play easy. Its the new game troubles that really killed me.
So I've moved away from it. Setting your own graphic options was nice but when things would get hectic later on and my performance would drop I'd get frustrated that I now needed to lower settings. The next gen systems are treating me well enough right now. I could see myself picking up more games on PC that are a few years old. Old enough to be patched so I don't have to worry about basic booting and installing and that my PC (if I upgraded a few things) could play easy. Its the new game troubles that really killed me.
Denton
Member
I hate making compromises on PC. I payed more than 1000€ for it so I want to max everything out at 60fps. ( I don't need a large amount of AA though )
Unfortunately due to the usual extremely poor optimization of most games on PC I'm not able to do it's just frustrating
You either selected bad components and/or select bad settings in games. No other explanation.
That makes no sense considering that most games will be 30fps (if even that) on PS4, and you claim to dislike less than 60.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Seriously. Who thinks like this? Unless your computer is at least 5 years old you are still getting double the framerate with the same visuals. How is getting an inferior version in any way a good idea?!
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Equal to that of a physical game? No, not at all.
This is basically like being able to afford a brand new BMW M3, but then saying since you can't afford a Ferrari, might as well just buy a 2002 Honda Accord.
CyanideFuse
Member
Just dropping one or two settings can make the world of difference with little perceivable difference to the graphical appearance and hit the magic constant 60fps sweet spot. And it will still look equal to or better than the consoles coupled with the higher frame rate.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
And someone who bought a Core 2 Quad Q6700 for the same price a month before they announced it would be screwed. (years ago even)
The components are fine, but after only 2 years they are outdated.
The PS4 makes sense in the way that I just won't have to worry about it. The game is what it is. I buy it and don't need to worry about performance because it is what it is, I won't have to fiddle with settings and get pissed off that I can't max things out. I'm having the same experience as other console owners.
If I read before hand that the game is just a disaster on a technical level ( something like bayonetta or DMC for PS3 ) I just won't play it.
It's an extreme way of thinking but I'm just tired of having to worry about this stuff on PC, and I'm tired of having to spend money equivalent to a console every 2 years to keep my PC up to date with a new GPU if I want to keep things maxed.
I have a GTX 670 2GB. At this point I NEED a new GPU with more memory just to keep up with consoles. A good GPU costs around 400€ in Europe, which is the equivalent of a PS4. I'd rather just get a PS4 and not have to worry about this stuff for 5 years or so ( not to mention the exclusives )
I know it's weird as hell. Other than potentially buying something on sale, if the PC version us going to look and run similarly to it's console counterpart, there really is no point on playing it on PC at that point. I use a controller for all PC games, so the benefit of precise kb/m inputs is gone. What else is left? Nothing for me. So, might as well get it console. When it gets to the point where more and more games are incapable of being maxed out then I will consider upgrading. It's that simple.
Gipsy Danger
Member
How so? If I wanted to I could give the game to my friend while still having it myself. I can't resell it but that's the only thing you lose. You're probably paying less for it anyway.
You don't NEED a new GPU. That GPU will still be enough to play games at least medium settings with 60fps. I just had a GTX 680 and could play a combination of high and ultra at 60. Still better performance than a PS4.
Don't know if this analogy works. I think it would be better to say that you have a new M3 and an old Accord. You're not taking it on the strada or anything, just a stroll to the local grocery store witg some buds so you don't feel you need to take the BMW.
As a PC/Console guy myself, this is far more realistic to what actually happens when I go to buy a game.
Poimandres
Member
I have the same card, and I have a PS4. I've been looking at all games released this gen up until this point, and thus far there isn't any game out there that will perform as well/better on PS4 than it will using your 670 2GB.
I expect games like Ass Creed and maybe GTAV to have better performance on PS4 than you would get with your 670, but even then I wouldn't bank on it!
UnrealEck
Member
In which games so far has the PS4 performed better than the GTX 670?
Yes, I can see how having the option to upgrade your parts to go beyond console performance and graphical quality is tiring.
CyanideFuse
Member
You don't need a new gpu if you are gaming at 1080/60.
I have the same card as you and it is more-than-meeting what I need from it. I have to tweak settings a little more than a year ago but nothing much. Just a couple of games and a couple of very unnoticeable settings from ultra to high. All is good.
Things will change into the future but I am not considering upgrading within the next 6 months at the very least unless a crazy-ass deal comes onto the 970 where a few games are chucked in for good measure (and higher VRAM versions are released).
Edit: Last post on page curse but I will add this:
VRAM is not the be-all-and-end-all. The consoles may have more potential VRAM but other settings are quite often getting toned down to be a mixture of 'medium' or 'high'. VRAM doesn't make the gpu hardware magical on the consoles; there are drawbacks to the hardware.