-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gamespot: Can We Build a Gaming PC on a Console Budget?
- Thread starter Dombrowski
- Start date
Good, good. It's always important to gatekeep who has the credibility to have an opinion, especially when age/money is a large factor in establishing that credibility and the subject requires nearly zero expertise to understand.
Rock on, you two.
There is a definite cut off point in AAA PC games where a game starts sacrificing design for a broader reach. As someone who grew up with shitty Walmart PCs until his 20s, I have first hand experience in that regard. As far as being disadvantaged, when you are up against people in BF who are running 60FPS and your rig is barely keeping 30 - I would call that a disadvantage.
My point was that I was not at the recommenced spec for games like watch dogs only months out of the gate with a expensive pc, not that I was mad that I couldn't max it out.
Again, you keep making assumptions about my intent. I was not in an argument with someone or trying to advocate one system over the other, so how can I possibly be "moving goalposts". I simply gave a reason why I personally prefer consoles and ended it by saying that I understand the appeal of PC. You seem upset, whereas I was just making an observation.
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
Don't forget a lot of you can get Windows for free if you're a student.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
There are also 1800 games listed as "partial controller support". Some of these are shooters which are a pain in the ass to play online with a gamepad, but most are playable first person games like Half Life, Skyrim, or Fallout. So there are over 3000 games on steam you don't have to touch a controller for.
This is a pretty flawed comparison though, because the games on Steam exist right now. Eight years in the future maybe the PS4 can compete? I don't know. You don't either. It probably wont.
Probably the most missed point in this entire thread is that consoles generally thrive on a lower entry price point to justify their existence.
If the two entry prices are even close to a competition, it is hard to imagine the backflips someone would need to make in order to prefer a closed console to an open PC.
I find using Steam desktop and BPM to be as easy or easier than using my PS3 all with a lot of added flexibility.
Open market, more innovation, much largely variety of games, more flexibility with options/mods/etc all come automatically with a PC.
I can understand people wanting to stay on consoles because of inertia or comfort reasons or for exclusives (sure wish PC had those!), but I find it hard to believe that someone coming into it with no prior biases would affirmatively choose a console at such similar price points.
And to top it off, I think SteamOS could tip the balance even more once (if) it takes off.
If the two entry prices are even close to a competition, it is hard to imagine the backflips someone would need to make in order to prefer a closed console to an open PC.
I find using Steam desktop and BPM to be as easy or easier than using my PS3 all with a lot of added flexibility.
Open market, more innovation, much largely variety of games, more flexibility with options/mods/etc all come automatically with a PC.
I can understand people wanting to stay on consoles because of inertia or comfort reasons or for exclusives (sure wish PC had those!), but I find it hard to believe that someone coming into it with no prior biases would affirmatively choose a console at such similar price points.
And to top it off, I think SteamOS could tip the balance even more once (if) it takes off.
graywolf323
Member
good luck running The Witcher 3 on a dual core CPU
Right! And about 2500 of them will run on a 5 year old PC, so there's no point in ever buying hardware. Or at least not until the year 2025 when there are over 2500 games that won't run on hardware from 2009.
Everyone on this forum buys hardware to play a number of games that represents an insignificant portion of the history of games. So why are we arguing about which platform gives access to the largest library of games from all history?
matrixman92
Member
I built one the other day for 910...but then I somehow forgot a DVD drive...and keyboard. So it was probably like 960 total. 10 dollar keyboard ftw
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
You're totally right, PC should win by default.
So You understand concept of optimal setting for a console, which means compromising graphical features to get somehow acceptable IQ and framerate on a machine with X amount of processing power, but then You treat PC as a single body.
What about optimal settings for different performance brackets? You know things that are called 'presets' in graphical options of every game on PC? How about those? Arent those optimal settings for different PCs just like optimal settings for different consoles?
But You know what is even better that those optimal settings called presets, that You can additionally customize them to fit You even better.
Welcome to free world my friend, where You not only have optimal settings provided by developers for You, but You can make Your own too. How cool and actually insightful is that, right? That developers do not think that optimal settings for one person are optimal for another, such down to earth way of thinking about Your consumer, that not everyone are the same and they actually have preferences.
In library of games available yes, in terms of exclusives people want to play that are available on certain platforms, no - there is no 'winner' in that department.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
My MMO response was to the guy who said PC gamers wouldn't need to trade their games in because "whereas after a month of most good PC games you're still just scratching the surface." It was a ridiculous statement. Most AAA games are shared by all platforms. The two biggest genres not making the transition to consoles are MMOs and strategy games (I guess simulations as well, but they aren't big sellers).
It's not that I think those are the only things PC has to offer over consoles. But if someone is going to make an ignorant statement like that, I'm definitely going to question it.
flaxknuckles
Member
Whatcha need that for? usb drives ftw
matrixman92
Member
I had already obtained a Windows 7 ultimate disc
I just feel like telling people their points are stupid, without the normal practice of arguing the opposite point is correct. It is definitely a relapse, but I'm on vacation, so what the hell.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
This depends on software prices too. Often prices on consoles are higher for games. As for hardware prices often times they sell them at cost or even below cost. So sure, short term may be in favor for the PS4 but over time after buying games and paying to play online may end up costing more than the PC.
I personally don't have a 'main' point of access to gaming, I simply play whatever game I feel like playing on whatever system I have it on. The platform itself is irrelevant to me in that sense. I'm also the kind of guy who buys a system for one game though, so my mindset probably doesn't represent the majority of people.
matrixman92
Member
im excited for the game, but Daylight doesnt look graphically impressive by any means.
Wow, ok let me simplify this for you -
You responded by saying consoles have concessions, I responded by saying that that's not my point. Your experience varies on PC depending on hardware.
To further clarify:
My original point was that for better or worse the experience on consoles is static, everybody gets the same experience. On PC, your experience might vary based on hardware capability to the point where you might be bared from having the same experience as others with better hardware. I used this as an example for a personal preference over PC gaming not as ammunition in some kind of weird fan boy fight which some people seem to be wanting. I wasn't advocating one side, I was merely giving my personal preference and reasons for my preference and ended by saying that others might not share the same view. Not everyone sees the most superior platform as being the most powerful, some have different standards for judging what constitutes superior.
The online costs are valid. However , you seem to be ignoring used games which make console games cheaper.
With PSN though the cost becomes negligible ( at least on ps3). Right now I have AC3, resistance 3 , BioShock infinite among other games from psn. These easily cost more than the £40 I paid for one year.
Wal-mart PC's =/= gaming PC's. They are overpriced for their components. If you go buy a $550 PC from Wal-Mart right now they won't perform anywhere nearly as well as anything listed in this article, for example. There is no reason you can't hit 60 FPS in BF on any rig made for gaming. You will have to lower settings (you won't have to lower resolution btw) to do it. There is no gameplay advantage to someone running a game on Ultra vs. someone running on Low/Medium. Low/Medium doesn't look like crap, btw, it's still on-par/better than console BF4.
An i5 3570k will perform better than the AMD CPU listed on the recommended specs there. I wouldn't put too much faith in the recommended specs for Watch Dogs. Nowhere did I imply that you were mad or aggravated but I made the remark that you bought a $1.7k rig without proper knowledge of how PC gaming works ("optimal settings" lol) as something mildly interesting.
This was what I said:
There's a lot you're gleaning from seemingly nothing. You're making the point that that a PC gaming experience is "sub-optimal" at times depending on hardware but somehow that relates to how the PS4 experience is static regardless of whether or not you're getting a better experience on the PC, anyways. The fact that you're judging the PC "optimal settings" differently from PS4 is what I was referring to by saying that you're "moving goalposts". It's fine to prefer consoles. I never talked about that. No one's upset if you just read the words being said.
Edit:
Yeah, this is precisely what I was getting at.
perfectsil
Member
So for BF4 on PS4 you're happy with 900p and equivalent to low-medium settings on PC, but playing the same game on PC in that setting would not be acceptable because some people have much better hardware and are playing the game in much better settings?
TheBryanJZX90
Member
One wrinkle in the "PCs do much more than play games, so they are a better value than consoles" argument. While this is absolutely true, I think that lately for the vast majority of consumers a lot of those "other" things that they actually want to do are being done on the phone or tablet, not PC. The number of things I want to do in my free time these days that requires a PC is muuuch less than it was 10 years ago before I had a smartphone in my pocket all the time. So yes, PCs have greater functionality, but that functionality is quickly becoming redundant.
Ok, this is turning into a war of attrition on multiple fronts that I dont care to fight for. You accuse me of inferring intent when all you have done is that. Please see the response to the guy above for a summation of my thoughts. I give up, Im sick of explaining myself multiple times to no avail and can no longer continue. Im no warrior so I should have known better than to step into this minefield of a thread but whatever. I got a sinus infection that makes me sound like gilbert godfrey and am way too tired for this shit. Go forth young squire, stroke gabens beard and tell him you have vanquished another blasphemer. Im out, you win! Good day sir.
Riky
$MSFT
PS4 version is around high PC settings, read the Digital Foundry face off for details,
Not to me, i would never browse the web extensively on my phone besides quickly looking something up and even that's annoying to do on a phone, same with consoles, they might have alot of features that pc's have offered for years but that doesn't mean they actually work the way you want them to, hell most mobile versions of websites don't even offer the full feature set you would get with the desktop version.
If you want to do something well (most non-game related stuff) you definitely won't be doing it on a phone / tablet / console.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Sure, you feel that way, but declining PC sales and increasing phone/tablet sales indicate the market as a whole agrees with me.
Ok, dad.
It's not a feeling it's a fact, most if not everything can be done better / easier on pc, the majority of the population might be moving to phones but that does not mean phones are actually doing it better so the entire world may agree with you but in the end it's a moot point because every feature on a phone is half-assed compared to the pc equivalent.
Go to your room.
Edit: Wait, i just saw the thread title, wasn't this a thread about hardware pricing?
Maybe it's because you haven't been keeping up with phones and tablets, but I feel your opinion is very outdated. Web and app design has gotten good enough that it's either the same or better then their full browser equivalent. I find myself prefering my phone for certain tasks like checking my bank account and since the mobile version cuts out all the bloat and is much more straightforward.
I have a Nexus 5, i'm pretty well up to date with phones, thanks.
These articles are all written by very salty PC gamers who can't stand to not be the center of attention for even a few months. "Look at us! We're still relevant over here in PC land! Please don't consider getting a filthy CONSOLE!"
Of course PC gaming is the best, budget allowing. The sky's the limit. I own a gaming PC and a gaming laptop, and mainly game on PC. However, trying to match the consoles on price is a fools' errand, and you end up making tradeoffs that are far too dear. For example, if you're using an AMD processor in a gaming PC, you've already lost. I accept the fact they're used in my consoles, but I'll never own a gaming PC with an AMD CPU. PC gamers need to accept that gaming PCs are a premium product and are not for everyone. I'm a happy PC gamer, but I own consoles too and know that each has their place. Some people are suited for PC gaming, and I steer those people toward capable - but costlier - rigs, and recommend consoles to everyone else.
(Also, to those buying Windows keys on reddit - resale of educational keys is against the licensing agreement, so you're technically committing piracy. Just because you pay money doesn't mean you're legal. We shouldn't be promoting the purchase of illegally sold Windows keys as a way to get a cut price OS.)
Of course PC gaming is the best, budget allowing. The sky's the limit. I own a gaming PC and a gaming laptop, and mainly game on PC. However, trying to match the consoles on price is a fools' errand, and you end up making tradeoffs that are far too dear. For example, if you're using an AMD processor in a gaming PC, you've already lost. I accept the fact they're used in my consoles, but I'll never own a gaming PC with an AMD CPU. PC gamers need to accept that gaming PCs are a premium product and are not for everyone. I'm a happy PC gamer, but I own consoles too and know that each has their place. Some people are suited for PC gaming, and I steer those people toward capable - but costlier - rigs, and recommend consoles to everyone else.
(Also, to those buying Windows keys on reddit - resale of educational keys is against the licensing agreement, so you're technically committing piracy. Just because you pay money doesn't mean you're legal. We shouldn't be promoting the purchase of illegally sold Windows keys as a way to get a cut price OS.)
Yep.
In single player, but not in multiplayer.
Then what is anything you said based on? You obviously like the experience enough to invest a significant amount of money into it.
This is very true. It's frankly a little discouraging watching Sony and MS desperately vie for attention while IGN et al. blanket the Internet with 24/7 wall-to-wall PC coverage.
you would enjoy it far less on a 360 or PS3, to be sure
that's my point, my core 2 duo + 8800GT system from 2008 would still be greatly outperforming last-gen consoles
But experience will vary from playing on consoles than on very high end PC too.
How is it different to play on PC on console setting and play on console in this case? You can compare both to experience on very high end PC, but somehow in Your comparison only lower end PC is affected by it. How so? I dont understand Your logic.
----
fixed
Louis Cyphre
Banned
What's next, factoring in used hardware? We can use various examples but the fact remains that console games are often higher priced due to royalties. I also have PS+ but you need it now on the PS4 just to play games online and many of those games we get for free have already been games people purchased months and sometimes years prior. The value people get out of it differs for everyone, however all PS4 owners have to pay just to play online and that's not the case on the PC. Of course not everyone plays online either so it's just another example too.
I already saw your summation of thoughts but this is what you said earlier:
I was simply pointing out how inconsistent this way of thinking is. Hope you get well soon.
chickdigger802
Banned
the whole idea is gonna be moot when some games that require some beefy specs appear, which does seem to start with Watch_dogs in a few weeks.
personally, a $500 pc sounds painful. $400-500 console sounds fine if there are games you want, $1000 pc sounds perfect and oddly enough feels like the most bang for your buck.
personally, a $500 pc sounds painful. $400-500 console sounds fine if there are games you want, $1000 pc sounds perfect and oddly enough feels like the most bang for your buck.
Compared to what most people spend on phones / tablets it's not a significant amount by any means, i'm also not planning on replacing it for quite some time, my last phone lasted a good 5-6 years and i stand by what i said, i don't like doing much of anything on my phone, wish i could have gotten a decent one with a keyboard but alas.
I factored the used games because its something the PC doesn't have anymore. Its an advantage that the consoles have exclusively I think. What I meant to say was that the used games offsets some of the cost of console games.
Psn plus example was mainly referring to PS 3.
On ps4 I find it difficult to justify at best.
UnrealEck
Member
Why is that?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
May I ask why? I know nothing of this stuff, and heard AMD was a lot more bang for your money.
Also, I figured the whole Reddit thing was basically piracy. But whatever helps the narrative I guess.
The bang for buck thing is from a decade ago, you could potentially apply it to their Gpu's but when it comes to the cpu department AMD is dead as dead can be, they can't compete, they flaunt more cores but when you need 4 more cores and way higher clock speeds to compete with even the most basic Intel cpu's why bother.
I don't know where you were going with this, but you made it sound as if we'd NEVER get to play those games on a PC, which is clearly wrong. Sure, it takes a few years until the emulators are ready, but hoo boy do the games look good once the emulators are running.
But yes, playing those games on release is not possible on PC. The joy of having a PC/console combo
Thus, my point. You need both. PC isnt better, console isnt better.
Sike. Consoles rule since Sega Genesis.
: 3
I thought more cores meant a cooler running unit. That would be the reason to flaunt more cores right?
...right guise?