Is PC gaming really worth it?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can tell you that my laptop cost me $750, has an i3 350M (whatever that translated to in GHZ) and I can run Bioshock, Supreme Commander and Borderlands without leaving much to be desired. It's got a dedicated 1GB Radeon 5470, so it's not a powerhouse, but it does the job just fine. Give that I'd expect to pay about $500 for a decent laptop if I was just looking for one for school or something, $750 is not a bad price for what I can do with it. Hell, I just spent the last 8 hours playing N64 emulators on it (because I'm too lazy to dig out my system). Having a portable N64 is practically worth the extra cost alone.CyberAkuma said:
I don't know why people think that PC gaming is dead, that's not true. While it is clear that the 'PC' section in my local games store has been shrinking of late, with services like Steam grow in popularity, provide more and more games, there is less reason for PC gamers to leave the house.
Also, Gaming has ceased to be the pursuit of the nerd sub-group and is now seen as being something everyone can participate in. Hence we get games with more and more simple stories, and more focus on multiplayer, and PC gaming is suddenly seen as 'dead' simply because the community is quite and understated.
Also, Gaming has ceased to be the pursuit of the nerd sub-group and is now seen as being something everyone can participate in. Hence we get games with more and more simple stories, and more focus on multiplayer, and PC gaming is suddenly seen as 'dead' simply because the community is quite and understated.
Woah woah woah woah woah there nelly. If you think you need to pay $3000, you've not been looking hard enough. Make it yourself and that 5-year gaming PC will cost you about $800, too.Player Two said:
Plus windows automates all the driver crap now anyway. It's not as easy as plug 'n play, but it's not like it's really difficult, it just takes half an hour instead of half a minute. Assuming the console doesn't have firmware updates to download.
Well I played COD4 first on PC (in fact the entire series on PC) but recently I got curious about why the series was so popular on consoles, perhaps it wasn't so bad, maybe they'd found a way to make it work?
So I got the xbox 360 version and here were my impressions goign the OTHER way:
-FUUUUUCK this game is not fun with a gamepad:
I had to snap-on an FPS Freek extension to the right thumbstick to make it any where near playable, COD is not like halo (that I am very familiar with on consoles) where you are basically a walking tank, COD series are twitch shooters and this ain't twitch. I thought they had some genius method but on consoles it is a completely different game. On PC you are Sergeant York, while on console you are a near sighted drunk.
-auto aim feels like a cheap exploit
It just feels wrong that I can look out a window in the general direction of gunfire and using sights they automatically snap to a target I had no idea was even there. It doesn't help the native resolution being less than half what it is on PC, I could snipe with iron sights in COD4 not magnification is an absolute necessity to even see the enemy.
-The enemies are nerfed beyond belief
I found in areas where I would have to fight so hard to survive on PC (same difficulty setting) I could stand in the open motionless for something like 10 seconds and not die. Even on Hardened mode I can run around in the open and hang out of cover with little care for myself. The laser guided grenades are still there but generally the enemies seem like they count "one, two, now attack" when they see you.
-Visually dismal
for example in "The Bog" mission when you are given the challenge to take out the ZPU in the PC version the ZPU is manned and being fired, this not only looks and sounds cool but gives these sense of urgency that your quick action may save allied aircraft. In the 360 version is it unmanned, sterile and silent, I have to put a bomb on it to spite no threat.
But throughout the game, the graphics are tipped just too much on the basic side, I remember on PC it had a visceral sense to the combat, on 360 it looks like I am fighting with plasticine men. Griggs' arms look like plastic on 360.
-Controls again
WHY can't I remap my controls?
I hate having sprint and melee mounted to the thumbstick buttons. Left thumbstick should be crouch (put sprint on facepad) and melee should be right bumper. The M203 grenade launcher should be selected by pressing-right on D-pad, then I can use my right thumb to select it while moving. Since BACK is unused, that should be to swap between grenade types and left-bumper to launch all grenades.
I just know the controls could be so much better.
One thing that would be nice is adjusting aim sensitivity on the fly based on how hard the left-trigger (use sights) is held down. Rather than depending on aim assist.
Ultimately if the CoD series for some reason gave up on PC then i would not continue it on consoles.
As much as the series has been "consolized" it is no where near as bad as the actual console version. I just think it console gamers could each just give the PC version a try and they realised how much they were missing out then there would not be this current great disparity between console and PC sales.
See no one is fighting for PC sales. Xbox 360 advertises and promotes the hell out of CoD series as they make money many times over:
-Licensing the game to be sold on their system
-People who buy game will then go online, pay for XBL gold membership
-critical mass of popularity online will generate more customers by peer pressure ("I gotta get an Xbox and CoD coz all my friends play it online")
-even more money with their cut of overpriced map pack
No one is "in charge of" the PC gaming market, no one influential entity profits directly off using the platform for gaming, the only real proponents are the actual fans. I think that's the main reason why CoD is more popular on consoles, marketability vs actual quality.
The thing is COD4 on PC has incredibly low standards:
-Resolution: 1024x600, that is lower than the lowest modern PC resolution, about the same as current ipod resolution
-Post processing: virtually none, only 2x Anti-aliasing, as basic as it gets
-Texture and Model detail: far lower on console, the side of weapons are flat low res textures with no specular mapping. I'd say it's more equivalent to Normal than High settings.
-Smoke edges: softened on PC, but lack thereof on console makes it look like transparent paper in the air clipping through itself and the environment.
-Framerate: quite good actually at 60fps and v-sync but quite pointless considering the slow pace you must take with joystick aim
-Bugs: 360 version is still very buggy, living enemies will sometimes stand normally but at a 45 degree angle to vertical on slopes/stairs
-depth of field: broken on both console and PC, but at least on PC you can turn it off. The problem is it assumes you are focusing on a certain point that you are not, or blurring things you could normally look through.
You can run console equivalent settings and get the same performance on even the oldest PCs, ANYTHING with a dual core processor, and a graphics card from 2005 onwards.
So I got the xbox 360 version and here were my impressions goign the OTHER way:
-FUUUUUCK this game is not fun with a gamepad:
I had to snap-on an FPS Freek extension to the right thumbstick to make it any where near playable, COD is not like halo (that I am very familiar with on consoles) where you are basically a walking tank, COD series are twitch shooters and this ain't twitch. I thought they had some genius method but on consoles it is a completely different game. On PC you are Sergeant York, while on console you are a near sighted drunk.
-auto aim feels like a cheap exploit
It just feels wrong that I can look out a window in the general direction of gunfire and using sights they automatically snap to a target I had no idea was even there. It doesn't help the native resolution being less than half what it is on PC, I could snipe with iron sights in COD4 not magnification is an absolute necessity to even see the enemy.
-The enemies are nerfed beyond belief
I found in areas where I would have to fight so hard to survive on PC (same difficulty setting) I could stand in the open motionless for something like 10 seconds and not die. Even on Hardened mode I can run around in the open and hang out of cover with little care for myself. The laser guided grenades are still there but generally the enemies seem like they count "one, two, now attack" when they see you.
-Visually dismal
for example in "The Bog" mission when you are given the challenge to take out the ZPU in the PC version the ZPU is manned and being fired, this not only looks and sounds cool but gives these sense of urgency that your quick action may save allied aircraft. In the 360 version is it unmanned, sterile and silent, I have to put a bomb on it to spite no threat.
But throughout the game, the graphics are tipped just too much on the basic side, I remember on PC it had a visceral sense to the combat, on 360 it looks like I am fighting with plasticine men. Griggs' arms look like plastic on 360.
-Controls again
WHY can't I remap my controls?
I hate having sprint and melee mounted to the thumbstick buttons. Left thumbstick should be crouch (put sprint on facepad) and melee should be right bumper. The M203 grenade launcher should be selected by pressing-right on D-pad, then I can use my right thumb to select it while moving. Since BACK is unused, that should be to swap between grenade types and left-bumper to launch all grenades.
I just know the controls could be so much better.
One thing that would be nice is adjusting aim sensitivity on the fly based on how hard the left-trigger (use sights) is held down. Rather than depending on aim assist.
Ultimately if the CoD series for some reason gave up on PC then i would not continue it on consoles.
As much as the series has been "consolized" it is no where near as bad as the actual console version. I just think it console gamers could each just give the PC version a try and they realised how much they were missing out then there would not be this current great disparity between console and PC sales.
See no one is fighting for PC sales. Xbox 360 advertises and promotes the hell out of CoD series as they make money many times over:
-Licensing the game to be sold on their system
-People who buy game will then go online, pay for XBL gold membership
-critical mass of popularity online will generate more customers by peer pressure ("I gotta get an Xbox and CoD coz all my friends play it online")
-even more money with their cut of overpriced map pack
No one is "in charge of" the PC gaming market, no one influential entity profits directly off using the platform for gaming, the only real proponents are the actual fans. I think that's the main reason why CoD is more popular on consoles, marketability vs actual quality.
The thing is COD4 on PC has incredibly low standards:
-Resolution: 1024x600, that is lower than the lowest modern PC resolution, about the same as current ipod resolution
-Post processing: virtually none, only 2x Anti-aliasing, as basic as it gets
-Texture and Model detail: far lower on console, the side of weapons are flat low res textures with no specular mapping. I'd say it's more equivalent to Normal than High settings.
-Smoke edges: softened on PC, but lack thereof on console makes it look like transparent paper in the air clipping through itself and the environment.
-Framerate: quite good actually at 60fps and v-sync but quite pointless considering the slow pace you must take with joystick aim
-Bugs: 360 version is still very buggy, living enemies will sometimes stand normally but at a 45 degree angle to vertical on slopes/stairs
-depth of field: broken on both console and PC, but at least on PC you can turn it off. The problem is it assumes you are focusing on a certain point that you are not, or blurring things you could normally look through.
You can run console equivalent settings and get the same performance on even the oldest PCs, ANYTHING with a dual core processor, and a graphics card from 2005 onwards.
Since I got my PC back from being repaired, I'd say yeah. Games like League of Legends and Minecraft are great, and I can just chill with friends over skype.
Consoles are pretty much the same idea, unfortunately my PC is crap, so a console can probably run games better, but with a good PC you wouldn't regret spending more money on a new graphics card than say, that new Xbox.
Consoles are pretty much the same idea, unfortunately my PC is crap, so a console can probably run games better, but with a good PC you wouldn't regret spending more money on a new graphics card than say, that new Xbox.
I got this PC for £600 a few months ago, and its powerful enough to run crysis at max detail at 30fps.
I planned for it to be as future-proof as possible. This can run all games on max fine right now. As it begins to get dated, I can turn down Anti-Aliasing and all those things that provide tiny graphical improvements for huge amounts of resources.
I planned for it to be as future-proof as possible. This can run all games on max fine right now. As it begins to get dated, I can turn down Anti-Aliasing and all those things that provide tiny graphical improvements for huge amounts of resources.
I tend to agree - but I think the cost aspect is a little skewed.Player Two said:
It's expensive initially to get started. But, once you have a good rig up and running, really the only thing that'll need to be upgraded in upcoming years is the video card - and even then it'll be years before it's really needed. We have yet to really see any titles that make extensive used of more than 2 CPU cores, let alone more than 2 GPU cores. If you're running a dualie or quad-core processor ATM, you won't need to upgrade your platform for a very long time. Graphically, even cards only a couple of series old are more than powerful enough for today's titles (except maybe Crysis and Metro2033), and if you want to go current, you don't need to purchase the flagship cards to have great performance. Compared to the cost of purchasing a new console every few years, which can add up quick, you're really only spending what you would over a longer period of time with a console.
Game prices, though, are a big factor most tend to forget about, too. PC games at time of release are generally $10 less than their console counterpart . . . and they drop in price quickly, too. Most blockbuster titles will fall in price by about $10 after the first month or two - and 6 months out they could easily be $20 off release price (if not half). And these are just the excpetions to the rule, tha majority of PC titles enter the market considerablly lower. Metro2033, when it was released, was only $40 for PC . . . whereas the xBox version was priced at $60.
. . . and if you happen to purchase your PC games through Steam, the savings are phenomenal. Steam titles, at time of release, are similar to on-shelf pricing . . . but, there are constant sales and promotions going on. Hell, it's possible to purchase 20 or more games at a time through Steam for anywhere between $10-$20 at any given moment.
If you factor in the game prices between PC and console, it further evens things out. TBH, I've spent less on my rig and games over the last 5 years than some of my friends who're console loyal have over the last 2 years.
Then there's always the flexibility arguement that PCs are more capable of doing more . . . which, IMHO, is becoming less and less of a factor with each console generation. Consoles are becoming more and more like PCs with each new generation released. 10 years ago, the thought of having a HDD for your console was absurd, same with regular internet connectivity and large-scale multiplayer. Such "features" were thought of as PC-only territory, and they were that way at the time. Given another 10 years and the way both platforms are progressing, I predict there will be very little difference between their capabilities. Hardware, though, and visual/audio output will always continue to be a major difference.
Until World of Warcraft dies, companies are going to keep blindly jumping into a pit of lava with a tiny island in the middle.bahumat42 said:
Also, another reason for the poor performance of many games these days is because developers are getting lazy with optimising them. New Vegas looks worse than Oblivion, and also runs slower. Minecraft runs horribly for a game of its graphics.
There was a time i loved everything to do with a PC. Sure I'd never play anything on high Graphics, and ive always had some sort of console platform behind the scenes to occupy me should I ever not be able to get onto the PC (a family of 5 will often do that to ya -,-) but recently, I've discovered that i am a student. I cant afford to upgrade my PC any more :'( as such, my PC now sits in the corner, slowly crying to itself, whilst the X-box 360 i had, that wasnt hooked up to the internet, has now taken the fore, all for £40. Bit of a shame really... i prefer PC gaming...
My point is, although PC games aline more to my preference of Game (RTS, Rollercoaster Thycoon, COD, Portal) and accomodates my social life much better than any console could, it is also much more expensive to keep up to date, and running at optimum standards. Plus the setup im using is getting pretty slow (even after wiping and re-formatting the system) due to it being 3 years old AND second hand. Ah well, such is life...
NOTE: Im not one to say the console is out and out shit, and im not attempting to upset anyone. In fact i love my X-box, but it just doesnt feel the same damnit!
My point is, although PC games aline more to my preference of Game (RTS, Rollercoaster Thycoon, COD, Portal) and accomodates my social life much better than any console could, it is also much more expensive to keep up to date, and running at optimum standards. Plus the setup im using is getting pretty slow (even after wiping and re-formatting the system) due to it being 3 years old AND second hand. Ah well, such is life...
NOTE: Im not one to say the console is out and out shit, and im not attempting to upset anyone. In fact i love my X-box, but it just doesnt feel the same damnit!
Oh, I almost forgot . . .
There is one thing that makes PC gaming absolutely kick-ass . . . mods:
Crysis mod - Mechwarrior: Living Legends [http://www.moddb.com/mods/mechwarrior-living-legends/news/mechwarrior-living-legends-040-open-beta-released]
Doom3 mod - The Dark Mod [http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-dark-mod]
STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl mod - Lost Alpha [http://www.moddb.com/mods/lost-alpha]
Half-Life 2 mod - Nightmare House 2 [http://www.moddb.com/mods/nightmare-house-2/news/nightmare-house-2-source-files-released]
Just to name a few . . . there are countless more out there
There is one thing that makes PC gaming absolutely kick-ass . . . mods:
Crysis mod - Mechwarrior: Living Legends [http://www.moddb.com/mods/mechwarrior-living-legends/news/mechwarrior-living-legends-040-open-beta-released]
Doom3 mod - The Dark Mod [http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-dark-mod]
STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl mod - Lost Alpha [http://www.moddb.com/mods/lost-alpha]
Half-Life 2 mod - Nightmare House 2 [http://www.moddb.com/mods/nightmare-house-2/news/nightmare-house-2-source-files-released]
Just to name a few . . . there are countless more out there
The problem might be that he seems to live in Australia... anything made inDanny Ocean said:
Notice how he said $800 for a PS3? I can't begin to imagine what Australian prices of PC components may cost. This along with poisonous spiders ad their crazy nanny-state government is why I have really been put off the idea of ever moving to Australia.
Still I'm sure PC is the better option for down under but if you are just not that hardcore and take a casual approach to gaming then maybe console are the better option. In fact, why bother with 360, you'd probably be happy waggling a wii-mote they obviously don't care about graphics or precision and cost seems to be their main metric.
Though I think the biggest factor is peer pressure, they really want to play COD/Halo because their friends are playing it. So they get it and more of the friends want to get it and you see how this positive feedback loop is created? It doesn't matter what they objectively think is the best, they just want to fit in.
A favour to my Aussie brothers:RhombusHatesYou said:
msy.com.au
Best prices I've seen anywhere.
I needed to update my big three: CPU, Memory, Motherboard and I did the usual haunts of AusPC Market or PC Case Gear. Then a chap from work showed me this website, and it had a physical outlet in my city.
I walked out with
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (3.3Ghz)
16GB 10600 DDR3 Ram
Asus M4N98TD-EVO NF980a
And it cost: $590 bucks
There were some other sundry items but, to upgrade the main three parts of a box, thats hot pricing by my reckoning.
MECHWARRIOR....I am so sold. Mechwarrior 2 and Ghost Bears Legacy were the first PC games I ever owned.Marq said:
Where are you doing your electronics shopping?! I don't live in Australia, but if you're paying £500 for a PS3 and £2000 for a PC then you're getting hosed.Player Two said:
I'm actually asking myself the same question lately. I love my PC, it's important for me not just for gaming. I've always been a PC gamer. Most of the games I have played throughout my life have been in PC centric genres. The ability to mod games is one I treasure highly and multitasking can really be helpful. On the other hand my experience with consoles is limited to playing with friends who own one. In the end I always walked away telling myself that consoles aren't made for me. Game pads for example confuse me greatly. I always feel like I can't even walk in a straight line with them in most games.
But then again, my current PC is nearly five years old and while I'm still able to play most games on reasonable settings, it will soon be time to buy a new graphics card. Now, as a student with a very limited disposable income, this could put a huge dent in my finances. For the price I pay for a good new graphics card, I could also nearly buy a PS3 or something. Together with the rise of console exclusives and more and more developers seeming to abandon PC gaming, this really makes me think about whether I shouldn't simply change sides.
I think I'll stay faithful for PC gaming for now, but I really can't guarantee for the future.
But then again, my current PC is nearly five years old and while I'm still able to play most games on reasonable settings, it will soon be time to buy a new graphics card. Now, as a student with a very limited disposable income, this could put a huge dent in my finances. For the price I pay for a good new graphics card, I could also nearly buy a PS3 or something. Together with the rise of console exclusives and more and more developers seeming to abandon PC gaming, this really makes me think about whether I shouldn't simply change sides.
I think I'll stay faithful for PC gaming for now, but I really can't guarantee for the future.
OP, is it worth it to go to a cinema to see a movie?
Depends. Do you want better quality? Do you appreciate movies? If yes, the higher quality of a real theater (or at least a very high end home theather), is totally worth it. If all you want is "purdy pic-tchures!" then the extra quality will be lost on you anyways, and it'll be a pointless investment.
Same applies to games and PCs. If you want proper quality, you get a PC.
As a gaming rig, yes you could have. 2xHD5870s are STILL a waste of money (except for cool points), and an i7 is hardly a necessity, as well as anything over 4/6 Gs of ram. If you factor in that you bought it a while ago, this could be an increasingly ridiculous expenditure, as price balloons out of reason the newer something is. The newest model will always be something like 2 or 3 times the price of the model just bellow it, while generally offering negligible performance increase.
You can build a working rig withing the 1000 bucks mark and it'll run anything on max.
Depends. Do you want better quality? Do you appreciate movies? If yes, the higher quality of a real theater (or at least a very high end home theather), is totally worth it. If all you want is "purdy pic-tchures!" then the extra quality will be lost on you anyways, and it'll be a pointless investment.
Same applies to games and PCs. If you want proper quality, you get a PC.
As a workstation, I don't know. That's a different matter entirely. Depends on your work.Fluffles said:
As a gaming rig, yes you could have. 2xHD5870s are STILL a waste of money (except for cool points), and an i7 is hardly a necessity, as well as anything over 4/6 Gs of ram. If you factor in that you bought it a while ago, this could be an increasingly ridiculous expenditure, as price balloons out of reason the newer something is. The newest model will always be something like 2 or 3 times the price of the model just bellow it, while generally offering negligible performance increase.
You can build a working rig withing the 1000 bucks mark and it'll run anything on max.