Support NeoGAF

[supermackem]

I like console gaming because its simple, hoy the disc in the tray and play. Patching and updateing is done for you anyway so i dont see the issue with that. Also when i go online i know the other players are on the same level as me, i had an expensive pc gaming machine about three years ago. It ended up playing wow at super maxxed out super settings at high res and very little else. Now it would struggle to run most new games medium settings, this is the type of thing that does my head in with pc gaming the cost. I bought a console at launch and bar it fucking up on me its still playing games that come out 5 years later the same level as everyone else on that platform.

 

[OmegaDragon]

@Iam220: I only have a notebook and a netbook. Why would I buy a standard PC if I don't enjoy playing on PCs as much as I do playing on consoles? I had a desktop PC before (even one I built myself) but I didn't enjoy PC gaming as much as I enjoyed console gaming.

That's not the 'problem'. If you (know you) don't like (high end) PC gaming, then you shouldn't invest time and money in it.

It's primarily for the enthusiast crowd that GAF has. If you like gaming alot and are willing to spend quite some money and time for it, then you should seriously considering getting a gaming PC. People are trying to educate that segment of GAF that PC gaming does not cost that much (but more than consoles), that is not that much of a hassle (but more than consoles), that PC has more than online FPS, RTS and MMORPG etc.
It's been said it this thread multiple times.

 

[legend166]

Skipping ahead to 2008 I this time built myself a pc for $1700 with all the new bells and whistles. Again swallowing the cost of pc gaming proved at first greatly beneficial as the latest call of duty and even the mighty crysis ran fine. However now a mere 2 years later ,black ops runs like shit. Games now have system requirement that are on par with my computer, meaning that there performance would be mediocre. Not to mention that PC I bought in 2005 wouldn't be able to touch any of the PC fps or rpgs coming out right now,

TL;DR PCs aren't cost effective at all!!

I built a PC at the end of 2007 for $1000 Australian dollars (granted, without a monitor). The only upgrades I've done are bigger HDDs and a new 24 inch 1080p monitor. Those have nothing to do with performance (in fact, if anything, running games at 1080p now is more taxing) and I'm having absolutely no problem running 95% of games released on the PC. Not at the highest settings, but at 1080p and still comfortably better than console games. Stuff like Metro and Crysis would make it chug, but that's about it.

So I have no idea what you spent $1700 on, but it should have no problems running the vast majority of software.

 

[Naar]

All of which are genres that are represented on the PC.

The genre is represented not the games! I could say consoles have some strategy games, no need to buy a PC for StarCraft and other such games because it's available on consoles.

Why can't people just accept that each platform has it's own unique allure and leave it at that?

 

[Drkirby]

Are laptops not a valid option for PC gaming now? If you play games on a laptop all your complaints are invalid. lol.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-news-reviews/395049-asus-x83vm-x2-user-review.html

That's my laptop. $800 in 2009.
"The Nvidia GeForce 9600M GS is basically the same GPU as the desktop GeForce 9500 GT, but it's crippled with DDR2 instead of faster GDDR3 memory."

Falls in line with these supposed magical $400 desktops that can run every console game better than consoles, right?

No, because it is a 9500 GT. That is the GPU I just owned before getting a 460 GTX, its is a Sub $50 GPU that is competent to make most games playable (And it has DirectX 10 Support) but it doesn't allow for even basic AA without causing a major drop in FPS.

 

[water_wendi]

bluestuff - interesting points. In theory, your PC should have kept up with the 360. especially for multiformat titles, they should never look worse - especially on your 2008 build. Maybe part of that is the closed nature of the 360 means you can optimise more easily. Or perhaps more likely, the open and scalable nature of the PC platform means you don't bother optimising?

thinking about loading times, stuttering on loading textures etc, none of that should be necessary. You should almost be able to load everything you need for a level into the GPU memory and run it like a mini console. Constantly optimise your shit to get the most out of the shaders etc - aren't current GPUs mostly the same as two years ago, only faster/bigger? The basic structure of how they work is the same.

Sometimes I wonder if its our fault. We as consumers constantly upgrade parts, meaning the developers don't have an incentive to optimise for older tech

Or its just Black Ops? Supposedly has some serious issues that are in the PC version. i havent bought Black Ops but on the Core2 Duo 6320 i bought years ago can run just any multiplat game well above the HD twins in image quality and speed. The only reason i window shop for new CPUs is for PS2/Wii emulation but its not a priority for me so i never buy. Well, that and recording while playing but im out of that atm.

 

[M°°nblade]

Yea, not really. This group of people would be getting into PC Gaming because they've owned the current gen console(s) for 5-6 years and are tired of sub-HD, aliasing, and shit image quality. They're never going to "miss out" on AAA games because the PC port doesn't support a pad, they'll just buy the console version. Of course there is Xpadder and various other KB/M > Pad mapping apps. It's also quite likely this demographic has zero interest in traditional PC staples like RTS's or MMO's.
If they are, they might play FFXI or XIV (if it ever becomes good) which is a developer they're familiar with, and both support pads natively. Honestly, 90% of modern PC games are console ports (Blizzard and Indie shit excluded), so this is a stupid argument in the first place. Any competitive online games they plan to play will take place on Live/PSN where their friends of several years are, not PC where they'll get owned regardless of input type.

The number of gamers fitting in your fictional profile will be close to zero.
Because if image quality is so important to someone that he's willing to invest a large amount of money in a gamepad only HTPC for the sake of playing 'some' offline consoleports in better quality, he's probably interested in better looking traditional PC games like guild wars and the witcher as well and he probably won't settle with HD console version image quality for gamepad support.
There's a reason why some developers don't bother adding controller support to the PC versions of their AAA games. 99% of PC gamers don't care because they use KB&M on a desktop.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

All of which are genres that are represented on the PC.

Well of course they are. I can agree with at least Uncharted/Heavy Rain, but please point out a game that resembles Demon's Souls on PC. I'd love to play it.

Also note, I'm primarily a PC gamer, but the facts are dev support for the PC compared to consoles isn't what it used to be. I'd love for that to return.

 

[mrklaw]

I like console gaming because its simple, hoy the disc in the tray and play. Patching and updateing is done for you anyway so i dont see the issue with that. Also when i go online i know the other players are on the same level as me, i had an expensive pc gaming machine about three years ago. It ended up playing wow at super maxxed out super settings at high res and very little else. Now it would struggle to run most new games medium settings, this is the type of thing that does my head in with pc gaming the cost. I bought a console at launch and bar it fucking up on me its still playing games that come out 5 years later the same level as everyone else on that platform.

but if you had a PC, you'd also be playing games at approximately the same level as when you bought it. The overall experience degrades over time, as other people's PCs specs improve etc. but likewise a console's experience degrades in comparison to PCs (assuming a multiplatform title). So whats the difference? Nobody is forcing you to upgrade your PC. Is it the fact that you *can* upgrade the PC and therefore you become dissatisfied with what you have, whereas with a console you have no upgrade path and are therefore more satisfied because thats all you can get?

 

[Dennis]

The elephant in the room is that ever single console-exclusive PS3 and 360 game would look and play much better on PC if that version was available.

I play console games that are simply not available on PC or those rare occasions where the PC version is a botched port job.

 

[mrklaw]

The elephant in the room is that ever single console-exclusive PS3 and 360 game would look and play much better on PC if that version was available.

I play console games that are simply not available on PC or those rare occasions where the PC version is a botched port job.

There are so many elephants in the room I can't see the wood for the trees. er..

Not necessarily. Especially for the important exclusives like God of War, Uncharted, Forza, GT etc, I'd expect the developer to have more budget available and potentially more access to first party info and how best to optimise for that platform.

Simply from a business perspective, anyone publishing on PC needs to make money. You don't have Microsoft or Dell bankrolling you because they want something that'll make their platform stand out. So you won't get the same level of investment. Plus who knows how good first party developers would be on PC? Maybe they'd be shit?

how about PC exclusives? I bet a bunch of them would play just fine on a 360/PS3, with a controller.



The landscape is what it is. I don't see it changing anytime soon. There are exclusives to consoles and PCs. You want to play them, you buy that platform. I think that is understood enough to move on. What - other than exclusives - are there on consoles vs PCs?

 

[Dennis]

how about PC exclusives? I bet a bunch of them would play just fine on a 360/PS3, with a controller.

I have no problem with porting PC games to the consoles if that is viable. A good game is a good game but I imagine the reason we don't see something like Torchligt on the consoles is the hoops that the devs have to jump through with Sony/MS plus the cost.

 

[warthog]

No, they're not.

This.

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

I have no problem with porting PC games to the consoles if that is viable. A good game is a good game but I imagine the reason we don't see something like Torchligt on the consoles is the hoops that the devs have to jump through with Sony/MS plus the cost.

They are making Torchlight for the consoles aren't they ?

 

[Dennis]

They are making Torchlight for the consoles aren't they ?

I don't know but nice if they are.

 

[tomedo]

I don't know but nice if they are.

Its coming to Xbox Live. MS is publishing so no PS3 version.

 

[Kintaro]

Its coming to Xbox Live. MS is publishing so no PS3 version.

This honestly just proves his point in a way. For some sort of publisher to be required to be on these services is just another hoop tp jump through. Because of this, they have to exclude an entire userbase and hope it works out.

 

[subversus]

I'm curious if devs just can't downgrade assets without remaking them from scratch. It would explain why we don't see better assets in PC version of a game.

I don't know but nice if they are.

and Torchlight 2 is multiplat.

 

[Yoshi]

That's not the 'problem'. If you (know you) don't like (high end) PC gaming, then you shouldn't invest time and money in it.

It's primarily for the enthusiast crowd that GAF has. If you like gaming alot and are willing to spend quite some money and time for it, then you should seriously considering getting a gaming PC. People are trying to educate that segment of GAF that PC gaming does not cost that much (but more than consoles), that is not that much of a hassle (but more than consoles), that PC has more than online FPS, RTS and MMORPG etc.
It's been said it this thread multiple times.

That's fair and I don't have a problem with this. However, I have a problem with denying the facts that it is more of a hassle, it is more expensive and that some types of games (especially my favourite types of games) are better suited for consoles. The last point doesn't mean that they are downright impossible on PCs and with a good gamepad (namely the 360 controller) they may play as well as on a console. Available games are also an issue which I wanted to point out with my sample (which francly included many Nintendo games). If you like platformers for instance: Good luck with finding great ones on the PC. Despite classics like Rayman 1/2, Commander Keen 1-6 and Jazz Jackrabbit 1/2 you will not find much of any value. Most great platformers are console exclusive.

 

[M°°nblade]

but if you had a PC, you'd also be playing games at approximately the same level as when you bought it. The overall experience degrades over time, as other people's PCs specs improve etc. but likewise a console's experience degrades in comparison to PCs (assuming a multiplatform title). So whats the difference? Nobody is forcing you to upgrade your PC. Is it the fact that you *can* upgrade the PC and therefore you become dissatisfied with what you have, whereas with a console you have no upgrade path and are therefore more satisfied because thats all you can get?

The difference is that although the console games you buy degrade in the light of state of the art PC technology, they remain optimized for their respective outdated hardware to a degree that they remain playable for the mayority of gamers (30fps).

Saying that upgrading your PC is completely optional is not entirely true. At one moment you will be forced to upgrade to play game X. Whether it’s the software (no windows XP support) , hardware (no dx9 card support, no pixel shader 2.0 support) or unplayable performance (hitting 10fps on low settings).

Generally, building a gaming PC has become cheaper but the focus on having an up-to-date graphics card has increased and become more expensive. Back in 1998, you bought an awesome graphics card like voodoo 2 for 100 euro and you were settled.

Nowadays, a 100 euro graphics card is no longer fit for gaming. Prices for mid-range to high-end cards go from 200 to 500 euro and choices between a shitload of different models, single GPU or SLI, benchmarks to compare performance/cost ratio’s have slowly pulled high-end PC gaming away from the mainstream, even among gamers.

 

[mclem]

All of which are genres that are represented on the PC.

I'm trying to think of my favourite recent (ish) PC platformer. Probably Cave Story, and that's not all that recent any more, but it was fun; I may well pick it up again on Wiiware to try to ensure Pixel gets some of what he's owed for that one. I need to get around to playing VVVVVVV, although it's not exactly a platformer.

The thing is, though, in the past year I've played New Super Mario Bros Wii, Little Big Planet 2 and Donkey Kong Country returns, and those are all far more enjoyable than Cave Story was.

It's not that the PC can't do the other genres, it's not that they're inherently bad on PC - it's that of those games that I adore, the PC's representations of the genre aren't as good, I feel, as what I get on console. I'd love to play a better, expansive platformer, but unless I'm just failing to find them (quite, quite possible), I'm limited to just these little bite-size efforts which, while entertaining, while good, just aren't quite *as* good.

 

[Stallion Free]

I would double dip on almost every single PS3/360 game I own if they re-released them for PC.

Games that would particularly benefit from the port:
-Ratchet and Clank series, holy shit some of the planets look incredible, but the cartoonish art-style is hurt by the 720p or lower resolution. A nice clean 1080p + 8xAA look incredible in TF2 and would do the same here.
-Alan Wake, lololololol I was so depressed playing this about how soft it looked that I just kinda stopped.
-Halo 3/ODST/Reach, again the nice clean artstyle and gameplay would really benefit from the boost in resolution and 60 fps.
-Gears of War 2/3, wtf I already double-dipped on Gears 1 so why not.
-Uncharted 2, animation would look supreme at 60 fps and they could do real-time cutscenes.

And of course I would still play them all with a controller.

 

[dacuk]

Count me in when Nintendo makes PC games.

Spoiler

Not going to happen

 

[Rafaelcsa]

To offer a view I haven't seen in the thread (haven't read all pages though), I just plain like controllers. I like that each console has its own controller and that this influences the games directly. I'm perfectly fine with keyboards and mouse, they're perfect for RTS games (one of my top favorite genres) and FPSs and what not, but since all PC games have to take into account this same type of control (even if they also support optional stuff like wheels, etc), many times games end up feeling like they all control the same.

Obviously this point relates stronger to Nintendo's consoles than Microsoft's or Sony's (the latter who basically use the same controller for over 10 years...). Nintendo designs its controllers thinking about the type of games they want to do and I do believe this helps bringing out more creativity in them. From the Game & Watch, to the NES, to all their other consoles and handhelds, this has been true. The controller they designed is definitely part of the reason why Super Mario Bros or Mario 64 or Metroid Prime or Smash Bros or Wii Sports or Brain Age or Metroid Other M are the games they are and I really like the diversity this brings to the table. I find it fascinating, actually, to think how much less interesting Nintendo's games in general would be if they just kept the SNES controller around and added two analog sticks in it. I don't get that much of that kind synergy between controller/game in PC games. Maybe I haven't played enough, though.

To offer a non-Nintendo example, I'm sure Shadow of the Colossus would be a rather different game in case it used a keyboard for movement input instead of the analog stick. And I don't think it would be for the best.

The other reasons people have talked about in depth. PC doesn't have many of the exclusive games I like and the ease of use of consoles is definitely preferable. I remember buying Battle For Middle Earth a few years back and I had to mess with register files in order to be able to play online. I spent as much time researching what the hell was wrong with the game as I did playing it on the day I bought it. Screw that. I'd rather actually play games, you know.

That said, I will occasionally put up with the PC's particularities when I have a big enough incentive, like I did for Starcraft 2 for example.

 

[iam220]

@Iam220: I only have a notebook and a netbook. Why would I buy a standard PC if I don't enjoy playing on PCs as much as I do playing on consoles? I had a desktop PC before (even one I built myself) but I didn't enjoy PC gaming as much as I enjoyed console gaming.

If you don't enjoy PC gaming there's no reason to buy a gaming PC. Obviously. The issue is that you don't have a gaming PC and that you're using experiences with your laptop to try and demonstrate that PC gaming is a hassle. I'm sure, that with your laptop, it is a hassle. The problem is that your experience is not exactly indicative of a dedicated gaming system, which just about every mainly-PC gamer here has. It's similar of course, they both share the same software but the hardware was never meant to primarily play games and that has its own set of consequences.

If you want to argue that your average laptop is worse for gaming than a dedicated console, than fine, I might even agree with you, but when gaming on your PC, the best option is always a custom build, dedicated, desktop setup. That's what PC gamers here have and that's what they're comparing consoles to in this discussion.

 

[K.Jack]

lol couldn't agree more, i spent like 1 month thinking over it, to buy or not to buy. I researched a little on sandy bridge and if any new GPUs coming out, and everyone said the next-gen GPUs just a higher clocked GPU, nothing new. I wasn't expecting a near 50% improvement. blah..

You researched mobile GPUs where? Not in the gaming laptop thread. I've been telling people to wait for the 6970M for months.

The GTX 460M is a slower GTS 450.

 

[Gully State]

As a long time PC gamer, I can attest to driver issues and games not working properly to be an annoyance. However these are minor in comparison to the the amount of money vs time a PC allots in the fast pace PC gaming world.

Let me give you an example from my own personal experience. In 2005 around the time when the xbox 360 came out, I decided to opt in for a relatively good pc for $1200(1gig ram,AMD 3500+, 7800 gt etc) to play all the latest PC games. At first games like half life 2 and oblivion looked great at the highest resolutions and graphic settings. However as time progressed and new pc exclusives came , the setting on each new game would be tuned down. Lower frame rates every steadily were achieved and games soon looked roughly the same as there 360 counterparts.

Skipping ahead to 2008 I this time built myself a pc for $1700 with all the new bells and whistles. Again swallowing the cost of pc gaming proved at first greatly beneficial as the latest call of duty and even the mighty crysis ran fine. However now a mere 2 years later ,black ops runs like shit. Games now have system requirement that are on par with my computer, meaning that there performance would be mediocre. Not to mention that PC I bought in 2005 wouldn't be able to touch any of the PC fps or rpgs coming out right now,

Simply put if I in opted for the 360 in 2005 I would have saved myself a hell of a lot of cash for a gaming experience relatively the same baring the loss of superior mouse and keyboard and higher resolutions. Now don't misunderstand that I still love pc gaming, and sc2 and wow take up great lengths of my time. But at this point getting those benefits just doesn't seem worth it where 2 computers have barely being able to outlast 1 console.

TL;DR PCs aren't cost effective at all!!

I'm curious what your build 2008 build is. I've spent way less than that on my PC (caveat- recycled a dvd drive/case) and outside of GTAIV and Crysis, it plays everything on high with AA @1080p 60 FPS.

My build-
CPU- Q9550 Core 2 Quad @ 2.83 GHz- $200
Mobo- P5Q Pro- $100
RAM- 4 GB DDR2-800- $60
HDD- 1 TB Samsung- $60
GPU- 5850- $240
PSU- 600W Zalman modular- $100 (definitely overpaid here but needed a quick fix)



Total: $860- This doesn't even factor in the additional $200 I saved from flipping my old components.

 

[SonOfABeep]

No, because it is a 9500 GT. That is the GPU I just owned before getting a 460 GTX, its is a Sub $50 GPU that is competent to make most games playable (And it has DirectX 10 Support) but it doesn't allow for even basic AA without causing a major drop in FPS.

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

 

[Oreoleo]

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

It's on the low-end of the 9000 series, don't know what you would expect. A 9800 would run it no problems.

 

[subversus]

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

also you could've said that some intel onboard card released 3 years after 360 also struggles with Bioshock on low settings! While I was playing it with dirt cheap 8600 in 2007 with no problems on high.

 

[SonOfABeep]

so is an 8600 better than a 9500?

Bioshock 1 runs incredibly well.

2, for some reason, will not.

 

[Nocebo]

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

I bought a calculator yesterday that doesn't run bioshock 2 on high detail settings GOSH!

 

[subversus]

so is an 8600 better than a 9500?

yes

Bioshock 1 runs incredibly well.

Please, provide a link to benchmark. Also both games would benefit from 2 core CPUs, the second one might benefit more because devs started using CPU more farther in this console cycle.

 

[Gully State]

I played bioshock and beat it on my old P4+6800GT (1280x1024/medium settings/~30 FPS) which was a 2004 PC at the time. That's not too bad considering the hardware was essentially 3 years old (not to mention the notorious performance of the Prescott P4's)..

The perception that PC gaming is this battle with upgrading to stay afloat is a gross over exaggeration.

 

[lunarworks]

The laptop factor is very important. That's what I have. It's a great machine for 99% of my needs, as I'm a pretty mobile person, but the Nvidia 9400M is a major limiting factor for gaming. I can't exactly slap a new graphics chip into here, can I? Plus, it runs hot as fuck in something like BioShock, and I don't like running it with fans at full blast for even an hour. It makes me nervous.

I can't afford, or even remotely justify, maintaining a second PC just for gaming. (Sure, I'd love to, in an ideal world... but it's not in the cards.)

 

[kpeezy]

Skipping ahead to 2008 I this time built myself a pc for $1700 with all the new bells and whistles. Again swallowing the cost of pc gaming proved at first greatly beneficial as the latest call of duty and even the mighty crysis ran fine. However now a mere 2 years later ,black ops runs like shit. Games now have system requirement that are on par with my computer, meaning that there performance would be mediocre. Not to mention that PC I bought in 2005 wouldn't be able to touch any of the PC fps or rpgs coming out right now,

Simply put if I in opted for the 360 in 2005 I would have saved myself a hell of a lot of cash for a gaming experience relatively the same baring the loss of superior mouse and keyboard and higher resolutions. Now don't misunderstand that I still love pc gaming, and sc2 and wow take up great lengths of my time. But at this point getting those benefits just doesn't seem worth it where 2 computers have barely being able to outlast 1 console.

TL;DR PCs aren't cost effective at all!!

What did you spend $1700 on? I built my computer in 2008 for under $1400 and it is way ahead of any console. i7, 6GB DDR3, Radeon 4870, 1TB drive. And yours?

I probably could have spent half of what I did and still have a better machine than any of the consoles.

 

[ghst]

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

a gpu that on release couldn't run six month old games based on six year old engines at even 30 frame per second.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9500-gt-review/8

the 15fps at medium settings for crysis is pretty stellar too. but let me guess, you've never seen this/any benchmark for your gpu, letalone before buying it?

 

[Ulairi]

As a long time PC gamer, I can attest to driver issues and games not working properly to be an annoyance. However these are minor in comparison to the the amount of money vs time a PC allots in the fast pace PC gaming world.

Let me give you an example from my own personal experience. In 2005 around the time when the xbox 360 came out, I decided to opt in for a relatively good pc for $1200(1gig ram,AMD 3500+, 7800 gt etc) to play all the latest PC games. At first games like half life 2 and oblivion looked great at the highest resolutions and graphic settings. However as time progressed and new pc exclusives came , the setting on each new game would be tuned down. Lower frame rates every steadily were achieved and games soon looked roughly the same as there 360 counterparts.

Skipping ahead to 2008 I this time built myself a pc for $1700 with all the new bells and whistles. Again swallowing the cost of pc gaming proved at first greatly beneficial as the latest call of duty and even the mighty crysis ran fine. However now a mere 2 years later ,black ops runs like shit. Games now have system requirement that are on par with my computer, meaning that there performance would be mediocre. Not to mention that PC I bought in 2005 wouldn't be able to touch any of the PC fps or rpgs coming out right now,

Simply put if I in opted for the 360 in 2005 I would have saved myself a hell of a lot of cash for a gaming experience relatively the same baring the loss of superior mouse and keyboard and higher resolutions. Now don't misunderstand that I still love pc gaming, and sc2 and wow take up great lengths of my time. But at this point getting those benefits just doesn't seem worth it where 2 computers have barely being able to outlast 1 console.

TL;DR PCs aren't cost effective at all!!

I'm calling bullshit until you list your specs. I built my tower in 2008 for $1,100 and it still runs everything great. I had to buy Windows and a monitor or it would have been cheaper.

 

[TheExodu5]

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

9500GT was never meant to play games.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I'm calling bullshit until you list your specs. I built my tower in 2008 for $1,100 and it still runs everything great. I had to buy Windows and a monitor or it would have been cheaper.

I built my tower in 2008 for $800 shipped and assembled and it still runs everything great (used Win7 developer preview until I had to pay and then bought a cheap copy when I got a sweetheart deal later, had monitor), so I can confirm exactly what you said.

Phenom II X3 720 overclocked to 3.2Ghz on stock cooling
4 Gigs Ram
HD4850
Can't remember what hard-drive, Antec silent case with integrated mid-range PSU.

 

[Stallion Free]

On July 29, 2008 the GeForce 9500 GT was officially launched.

So a GPU released almost 3 years after the xbox 360 runs Bioshock 2 on low settings and stutters during combat.

Great.

Do you buy everything blindly?

 

[legend166]

My 2007 machine:

Core 2 Duo E6750
8800GT
2GB RAM

Still runs everything I throw at it.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Running SFIV @ a steady 60fps and play all modern games with $500 dollar build and old ass video card that is still way better than any card in any console.

In the long run this costs me way less money as I don't

-have to pay for online
-have to pay more for games
-have to replace controllers every month
-dont have to get more overpriced accessories to bring things up to par (ex hard drive)
-and those other hidden expenses of console gaming

 

[iam220]

-have to replace controllers every month

Why would you have to do this?

 

[NIN90]

Suprise, the 50$ GPU from 2008 doesn't run shit. D:

 

[ChoklitReign]

9500GT was never meant to play games.

It can play games made before 2005. Possibly even FEAR 1. If it's just an HTPC card when why have a 9400 GT, 9300 GT, etc. when they all do the same thing?

 

[Faxanadu]

I know I'm late to the party but the simple answer to the OP question...because not all PC's are created equal. All consoles have a set architecture so everyone experiences the game as intended for that system..

/late

 

[Lionheart1337]

Why would you have to do this?

I used to play in a lot of tournies and you'd be surprised how quickly you got through the things. They aren't very durable.

 

[Fredescu]

It can play games made before 2005. Possibly even FEAR 1. If it's just an HTPC card when why have a 9400 GT, 9300 GT, etc. when they all do the same thing?

There are a lot of marketing reasons why you want to have a product at a number of pricepoints rather than one cheap one and one super expensive one. In a lot of cases people will pay the extra $20 for the higher number, even if it's essentially a worthless product.

 

[NIN90]

I know I'm late to the party but the simple answer to the OP question...because not all PC's are created equal. All consoles have a set architecture so everyone experiences the game as intended for that system..

/late

See, I don't get this. Why would I care how games run on that other guy's PC? If I spend 500$ for a new rig, I can be sure that I can play every new game well for a couple years.
And what the fuck does "as intended" mean? So you mean it was intended to be played in sub HD?

It can play games made before 2005. Possibly even FEAR 1. If it's just an HTPC card when why have a 9400 GT, 9300 GT, etc. when they all do the same thing?

Business 101