The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race

[GonzoGamer]

Hm, I'm still more interested in PS4 than PC. Console is supposed to be - no settings and no fiddling around required. Put the game in and play. As for xbox, MS consoles were shit, are shit and will be shit and I don't really give a shit.
Well, shit that's a lot of shit in one post.

But that's really not the case anymore is it. Especially with a game published by Sony. Then you have to punch in some code, wait for patches to download, set the brightness, then if you bought it at launch, you probably have a bunch more codes to punch in to get the "bonus" pre-order dlc. It would be forgivable if they at least tried to add some of the benefits of playing on a PC, like mods for example.
The only reason I have a console is I like to play games with people in the same room as well as online. PC games (even though many hook a pc up to the tv) rarely have a splitscreen option. If I only liked to play single player like Yahtzee, I probably wouldn't have a console at all.

...Which is all absolutely horrible and I hope they realize that with PS4 (so far they said positive things, we'll see how it turns out). Thing is, I don't want to bother with PCs with those driver updates and compatibility issues. For the most part I've been using notebook in recent years and I've never updated any drivers on. This is whole load of shit you have to download from some site, and with PC it's often separate drivers for every part... I don't wanna ever have to do anything with it. At least PS3 just asks you to push ok once if it wants to update something.

No it's not at the same level of annoyance but its getting there. A lot of pc gamers don't like the consoles sandbagging new tech but I (selfishly maybe) like it because it means I don't have to update my pc as much. As for driver updates they don't annoy me as much anymore. And I don't really have compatibility issues, though I'm sure others do. The thing is, if you have something go wrong with a PC game (a Bethesda game for example), there's a good chance you can fix it yourself with mods or a driver update or something like that. You pop a Bethesda game in the ps3 and it doesn't work, you have to wait for Bethesda to fix that. And that can be a while.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Thats fine and Dandy but comments like those will put people off trying or even looking into it. If you like gaming but have never built a PC before these comments, that go up daily anywhere gamers congregate, will most likely scare you off looking into it.

It also takes an extraordinarily thin-skinned individual to be off-put by the statement PC's can be built to the needs and expectations of the user, albeit gruffly, in response to someone who continues asserting beyond evidence, fact, and reason to the contrary.

Thats why you constantly hear PCs are more expensive. My brothers PC was put together for around the price of a lauchday console and runs whatever he wants to play but you dont read these sort of stories on the forums.

Yes, you do. There are several in this thread alone, my own included. You "constantly" hear PC's are more expensive out of the mouths of console gamers who continue parroting the point, even when evidence to the contrary is shown directly to them, and you "don't" read stories to the contrary when you've chosen to overlook them.

I have no patience, personally, arguing a PRATT [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times], especially when those who continue to argue against it are simply seeking to indulge their own confirmation bias.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Ram isn't everything when CPU/GPUs are around.

Yes, yes it is. You can have all the processing power and bandwidth in the world, but if you don't have enough physical memory to load and contain game assets, your game won't run well. You'll be lucky if it runs, especially when your much-flaunted processors start having to dedicate cycles to continually loading, unloading, and scaling assets, and caching, because of limited memory. And, by far the most important thing when building a system that ages well is to overbuild when it comes to system memory. I've dealt with way too many low-end and mid-range, and upgraded, way too many times to have any illusion otherwise.

Dollars to donuts, Microsoft and Sony are banking on their processors' power and memory bandwidth to load and unload assets only as necessary -- because that worked out so well in the long run with the 360 and PS3.

...the pc version of Skyrim was a 2GB RAM minimum requirement and it isn't just because of the ps3/360 holding it back as it certainly scaled up.

On which system(s) were the Skyrim HD texture pack made available, again? It's not like there was a major kerfluffle about the 360 and PS3 versions of Skyrim having major texture downscaling and performance issues or anything...

So, I believe the number to have been pulled that number out of thin air or from your own personal experience rather than any aggregate data. If you can show me the source I'd like to see what their thinking is.

Total RAM. Graphics cards tend to have dedicated video RAM, unless you've forgotten. Considering the Wii U, Xbone, and PS4 have integrated memory, you're shortselling PC's by not accounting for video memory.

8GB standard system memory + 1-2GB video memory = 9-10 total memory.

...even if you believed that the 6GB or higher was code for 9-10GB, it would certainly not be the norm yet.

It will be the norm among new machines by the time the Xbone and PS4 are released.

 

[Ickabod]

There is a line a number of years ago that said,

"What's good for GM is good for America." - spoken by some GM exec

How'd that turn out for GM, the company that went broke a couple of years ago.

Companies that believe themselves to be bigger than they or their market are, are doomed to fail. While it's understandable that Microsoft wants to expand the use of the Xbone, they are doing it at the cost of the people that actually would want to buy it. So they find themselves reaching for a demographic they think they can manufacture, but in reality are more than likely alienating those closest to them.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, yes it is. You can have all the processing power and bandwidth in the world, but if you don't have enough physical memory to load and contain game assets, your game won't run well. You'll be lucky if it runs, especially when your much-flaunted processors start having to dedicate cycles to continually loading, unloading, and scaling assets, and caching, because of limited memory. And, by far the most important thing when building a system that ages well is to overbuild when it comes to system memory. I've dealt with way too many low-end and mid-range, and upgraded, way too many times to have any illusion otherwise.

Dollars to donuts, Microsoft and Sony are banking on their processors' power and memory bandwidth to load and unload assets only as necessary -- because that worked out so well in the long run with the 360 and PS3.

You're talking about RAM that is not only 16 times more than the current generation but also significantly faster where the PS4 is concerned. The RAM was constrictive for the ps3 but not nearly so constrictive as the rediculous asset categories of the proprietary cpu. If you recall Skyrim bloating to the point of unplayability on the ps3, then you'll recall that the issue was those asset categories getting too bloated and not anything regarding RAM.

8GB of RAM, especially GDDR5 is a huge leap forward and we won't see games fully utilizing that for years down the road.

On which system(s) were the Skyrim HD texture pack made available, again? It's not like there was a major kerfluffle about the 360 and PS3 versions of Skyrim having major texture downscaling and performance issues or anything...

That's more an issue with their DLC and modding infrastructure than anything else. Microsoft charges for any additional content after the first patch and sony was finicky at best. In any event, skyrim wasn't Ultra on the consoles but it was definitely some beautiful graphics.

Total RAM. Graphics cards tend to have dedicated video RAM, unless you've forgotten. Considering the Wii U, Xbone, and PS4 have integrated memory, you're shortselling PC's by not accounting for video memory.

8GB standard system memory + 1-2GB video memory = 9-10 total memory.

That's what you were saying?! That's an odd statement to make as VRAM =/= RAM. But seeing as you did say "Total RAM" in your initial post I can believe that this was your inention.

Though it's important to note that all of the PS4's 8GB RAM is GDDR5. I wonder how much of a difference that may make. We also still don't know that much about the CPU or GPU aside from some very basic stats. With the past decade or so of games being made for 512MBs of RAM on consoles and 2GB minimum reqs on pcs, do you honestly believe that games will instantly jump to 8GBs minimums? Especially on consoles that optimize bandwidth between components at a significantly higher rate than pcs are capable of?

It will be the norm among new machines by the time the Xbone and PS4 are released.

Potentially. I don't have a crystal ball. Most people thought it would be an almost instant switch the moment x64 operating systems came out but it didn't happen. Though it's fairly clear that gaming does drive hardware advancements, so I would absolutely see the release of those systems as moving that hardware forward. If what's being sold right now is mostly 4GB or lower pcs, what makes you think 6 months will shift the goal posts entirely into the 8GB RAM with 2GB VRAM on the video card?

This is vague guessing at best even from professional market forecasters. This is also besides the point. Your statement was that the current standard is 9-10GB of RAM. Even if I am to accept that it's appropriate to group different types of RAM together, this is clearly not the case. It is not the current standard and likely will not be the standard for some time. 6 months? Maybe, but probably not until games really start to knock on 4GB as the minimum requirement.

 

[WanderingFool]

You can?t take it back, it?s ours now.

I just upgraded with a Samsung 256GB SSD and I?m going to upgrade my graphics card to a GTX 770 awaiting the arrival of my Oculus Rift soon.

I?m also looking forward to 4K monitors coming up and you can?t stop me!

Is the one in front (the husky one) the Tron guy evolved?

Anyways, Im waiting for my new jobs first paycheck to come to see if im going to be splurging on anything, but I can tell you it wont be a gen 8 console... hell, with the economy the way it is, I might not buy a gen 8 console until gen 9 comes out...

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Pft. Handhelds are dying off to mobile devices. Its been clear for years. Whats the point of a handheld anymore?

PS3? Why would you get that when its support is being dropped? Why would you go for highly outdated hardware in a transition?

Wii U? Its been having trouble getting ANY support from developers and customers. Hardly a worthy investment of hundreds of dollars. Its still on the same level as the PS3/360. Why even bother? Its never been known for cost, and without games its not a good investment at all. PC part manufacturers do not make parts for 8 years straight without any change. Going back to 2005 level technology on a PC is impossible because of how tech changes unless you buy it from a store that has a 2005 era PC part rotting in the back.

Where is you "superior" choice here? Where is your "savings?" Because I fucking see none. The Ps4 has a paltry 1.8 ghz of power, and the Xbox is rumored to be 1.3. The older run of the mill CPU is anywhere from 2-3 ghz. Anyone who knows anything about technology would know this, and its been confirmed since the damn reveals.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/sony-details-playstation-4-specs-8-core-amd-jaguar-cpu-8x-bl/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/APU-Jaguar-PlayStation-Kabini-Temash,21229.html

Both run the jaguar. The jaguar is a budget level tablet and laptop APU. A weak APU. Its from AMD, a company that is on its last legs and desperate to make any profit it can.

So whats the point of getting a console if its most likely going to run 500$? Whats the point when its no more powerful than a tablet? An item a lot of people have now?

Nice try insulting random people because of your own ignorance and fear though. Next time try backing up your claims with facts.

So I should spend $700 on a PC instead? Yeah that makes sense.

If handhelds are dying to mobile devices, which offer only paltry mini-game ware in the first place, then tell me why the 3DS is continuing to sell?

I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours? As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game. The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it.

s'pose the best thing to do is not.
if it doesnt interest you, dont bother, stick with what you're happy with.
pretty much the most vocal about their prefered platform are going to come off as elitist, those who dont feel like they have anything to prove and just enjoy the gaming ain't going to speak up as much. not all PC fans are snobs. just like all 360 owners arent frat boys

 

[Lightknight]

I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

? 3.5? I think that is a significant understatement. We're talking about 16 times the amount of RAM in a fancier GDDR5 format with a significant improvement to CPU and GPU. The improvement to the CPU is staggering when you consider that the ps3 was purposefully made to be difficult to program for by forcing developers to break up and balance all of their assets into specific categories. If any one category got too bloated then you'd have performance issues and possibly crashing.

The ps4 gets rid of that shitty proprietary format and gives us something more standard that will save developers significant time in creating ports now that everything (except the WiiU) is basically an x86 machine.

So make no mistake, this absolutely a leap ahead of the ps3 even if it is possible to pay over $1,000 for a pc that is better than the ps4. The $700 number being floated around is for machines that have similar specs but do not take into account that we don't actually know the CPU and GPU exact specs even though people throw around the 1.8 number as well as ignoring the fact that the hardware and software is optimized in a way that only standardized environments can allow. I'd like to see what people called the equivalent GPU and the equivalent RAM that brought them to a $700 setup. For example, if they priced the 8GB GDDR5 as 8GB DDR3 then I'd like to see their exact reasoning there as the former is nearly always much more expensive.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours?

If Nintendo games are your cup of tea, then by all means go that route. The point of games isn't to have the biggest and most powerful machines. It's to have the games that make you happiest. For all that my ps4 or Xbone and even my current powerful machine will be able to do, it won't be able to play Mario or Zelda games. If you were ok this past Wii generation passing up most of the major AAA titles then this next generation should be fine too.

I just know that I would not have been nearly has happy with just my Wii as I was with the other systems.

As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game.

You're absolutely correct, it does not make the game. But it does make the game more immersive and in the case of the past generation, graphical capabilities did keep some excellent titles out of the reach of Wii owners while bullshit corporate bureaucracy kept great indie games out of the hands of console owners.

The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it. s'pose the best thing to do is not.
if it doesnt interest you, dont bother, stick with what you're happy with.

The problem is that you're calling it, "it". PCs aren't a thing like the ps4 or the Xbone are a thing. Saying not to support PCs is basically saying not to support PC owners for some arbitrary reason. Like they're not nice or something.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I see no reason to get a PS4 when it's just a PS3.5 w/o backwards compatibility. They have yet to impress me with that.

? 3.5? I think that is a significant understatement. We're talking about 16 times the amount of RAM in a fancier GDDR5 format with a significant improvement to CPU and GPU. The improvement to the CPU is staggering when you consider that the ps3 was purposefully made to be difficult to program for by forcing developers to break up and balance all of their assets into specific categories. If any one category got too bloated then you'd have performance issues and possibly crashing.

The ps4 gets rid of that shitty proprietary format and gives us something more standard that will save developers significant time in creating ports now that everything (except the WiiU) is basically an x86 machine.

So make no mistake, this absolutely a leap ahead of the ps3 even if it is possible to pay over $1,000 for a pc that is better than the ps4. The $700 number being floated around is for machines that have similar specs but do not take into account that we don't actually know the CPU and GPU exact specs even though people throw around the 1.8 number as well as ignoring the fact that the hardware and software is optimized in a way that only standardized environments can allow. I'd like to see what people called the equivalent GPU and the equivalent RAM that brought them to a $700 setup. For example, if they priced the 8GB GDDR5 as 8GB DDR3 then I'd like to see their exact reasoning there as the former is nearly always much more expensive.

As for the WiiU, did it ever occur to you that Nintendo is getting games ready and the reason devs don't work on it is because they listen to comments like yours? As as for graphics, y'know this leads to pretty much the rest of your argument about how the graphical tech is lower than consoles: who cares about graphics? Graphics don't make the game. The fact that neither devs nor gamers have learned this just backs up my point: PC gaming is not the master race. It is the pretentious snobbery of the industry and until it stops being smug and expensive, no one should support it.

s'pose the best thing to do is not.
if it doesnt interest you, dont bother, stick with what you're happy with.
pretty much the most vocal about their prefered platform are going to come off as elitist, those who dont feel like they have anything to prove and just enjoy the gaming ain't going to speak up as much. not all PC fans are snobs. just like all 360 owners arent frat boys

If Nintendo games are your cup of tea, then by all means go that route. The point of games isn't to have the biggest and most powerful machines. It's to have the games that make you happiest. For all that my ps4 or Xbone and even my current powerful machine will be able to do, it won't be able to play Mario or Zelda games. If you were ok this past Wii generation passing up most of the major AAA titles then this next generation should be fine too.[/quote] lol, i think you quoted me by mistake there chief

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

You're talking about RAM that is not only 16 times more than the current generation but also significantly faster where the PS4 is concerned. The RAM was constrictive for the ps3 but not nearly so constrictive as the rediculous asset categories of the proprietary cpu. If you recall Skyrim bloating to the point of unplayability on the ps3, then you'll recall that the issue was those asset categories getting too bloated and not anything regarding RAM.

I'm also bearing in mind the longevity of this current generation. Yes, the 360/PS3 generation lasted longer than practically any console generation that's come before it, but on the other hand when those consoles were announced developers raved about the insane amounts of processing power and memory they had then. It took about two years for those consoles' limitations to actually be reached, for developers to start running on fumes from an optimization perspective.

8GB of RAM, especially GDDR5 is a huge leap forward and we won't see games fully utilizing that for years down the road.

The same was said about the previous generation's 512MB RAM, and of every generation before it. You'll have to grant me a healthy amount of skepticism that 8GB is going to grant longevity, when that's already becoming the standard for even mid-range PC's.

Though it's important to note that all of the PS4's 8GB RAM is GDDR5.

Of all the next-gen consoles, the PS4 is the only one I think will have any real longevity. 8GB, albeit integrated, with none dedicated for the OS and "apps" and enough memory bandwidth to use it well.

...do you honestly believe that games will instantly jump to 8GBs minimums?

Considering the gaming trends of the past generation, I think it will within the next two or three years. The current generations' consoles, for the fact developers generally have to port or develop alongside, really have been holding games back for the last year or two.

...what makes you think 6 months will shift the goal posts entirely into the 8GB RAM with 2GB VRAM on the video card?

New mid-range PC's are already being shipped and sold with 8GB of system memory, and the "low end" systems are being increasingly marked down for clearance. Those are manufactured machines, and that tells me retailers are expecting a new wave of machines for the holiday season.

 

[Roxas1359]

See for me I will always be a console gamer, but I have a good gaming PC so that I can dabble in that too. For me while there are many good games on PC, they're aren't enough that warrant me from stopping with consoles. Now I'm not liking where the consoles are going, definitely not getting a Xbone and I'm on the fence with the PS4, but consoles still have one hold on me that PC has yet to break and that is the exclusives. Now I know I can go with emulators, but we're no were close to getting emulators to run well from 7th generation consoles. Hell we're still having a problem trying to emulate the 6th generation when it comes to the PS2.

Unfortunately though there will always be elitists everywhere who believe that they are better than someone else. Whenever my friends use to call me a console peasant I'd just shrug it off and do what I loved doing: gaming. I'll see how this generation will go out as I'm not the kind of person who gets a console on day one so I'll wait until I see how it performs and what games it'll have. Hell that's why I'm waiting on the Wii U, and that wait will pay off soon when the games I want come out the later half of this year or next year.

 

[Lightknight]

lol, i think you quoted me by mistake there chief

You caught me in the middle of an edit. Haha, thanks though!

I'm also bearing in mind the longevity of this current generation. Yes, the 360/PS3 generation lasted longer than practically any console generation that's come before it, but on the other hand when those consoles were announced developers raved about the insane amounts of processing power and memory they had then. It took about two years for those consoles' limitations to actually be reached, for developers to start running on fumes from an optimization perspective.

There have been significant advancements in gaming beyond that '2 year' mark that you picked. Games coming out this year are significantly more advanced than games that came out in, say, 2008 or 2009. So I'm not sure how you gauged that 2 years was the specifically the time developers were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'd say the past two years have shown us barrel scraping but not before.

But I suppose that depends on what you mean by limitations being reached. If you mean that the pc graphics were moving beyond the consoles then that's absolutely correct and probably an accurate timeline.

The same was said about the previous generation's 512MB RAM, and of every generation before it. You'll have to grant me a healthy amount of skepticism that 8GB is going to grant longevity, when that's already becoming the standard for even mid-range PC's.

Longevity is relative. If game developers create games that are playable on the ps4 for 15 years then that's the range it'd have. As is, the PC market is a kind of measuring stick that pushes consoles along at a faster pace than they may have preferred. I think the 8GB is enough to last at least the five years. There are only so many calculations to be made in our current format of gaming. We are getting to a point where we're across the uncanny valley in a lot of ways and moving beyond that will give us significantly diminished returns (you can only get so "realistic" before it's realistic). That being said, there is a potential for new peripherals like the Oculus Rift to push computing to a new level of demand.

I'm certainly not one to say that we won't need all 8 GB soon. I've gone through too many times where 512MB, or 1GB were "more than we'll ever need" to put this in a corner. So please don't think I'm saying that. But what we needed this generation wasn't the top of the line. We needed a significant step upwards in technology that was also able to be priced in a way that people would buy it. You and I, it sounds like we bought great machines. Mine has 16GB of RAM and additional VRAM that can be bridged with more any time I deem it necessary. As such, my pc has great longevity. I also own the consoles. But there are people who can't afford a four digit console and certainly couldn't afford multiple machines.

With that in mind, I think the ps4 did almost the best that could be done.

Of all the next-gen consoles, the PS4 is the only one I think will have any real longevity. 8GB, albeit integrated, with none dedicated for the OS and "apps" and enough memory bandwidth to use it well.

Microsoft is pushing cloud processing. If that is the route they go then the exact console specs almost don't matter. I'm certainly not a fan of the Xbone but that model has more longevity behind it even if I hate the Always On requirement enough to have specifically not purchased games because of it. I don't know if Sony has any such plans.

Considering the gaming trends of the past generation, I think it will within the next two or three years. The current generations' consoles, for the fact developers generally have to port or develop alongside, really have been holding games back for the last year or two.

I don't think the two or three years is accurate, but that could be a difference of semantics like I said above. I completely agree with the last part of that paragraph though, 100%. I've also been complaining about consoles holding advancements in gaming tech for some time now.

New mid-range PC's are already being shipped and sold with 8GB of system memory, and the "low end" systems are being increasingly marked down for clearance. Those are manufactured machines, and that tells me retailers are expecting a new wave of machines for the holiday season.

Mid range/low end are subjective terms. When the top tier games are playable on 2GB RAM machines with older video cards and CPUs then 8GB machines would be functionally high tier with more powerful machines being longevity minded. My 16GB machine is what it is because I don't want to open the tower again for 4-5 years. It isn't because I've actually been using all that juice. So a high end pc should be a system that capable of handling modern games at optimum levels. 8GB machines do that just fine.

Either way, mid-range is a very different term than the "standard" machine. The standard machine, as I expressed, is still 4GB. 6 months may or may not make the difference.

 

[gamegod25]

The irony is they market it as an all-in-one entertainment hub, yet if you want to play old games then you'll need the 360 as well. And if you need more than 500Gbs of space then you'll have more little boxes around the system taking up space.

Oh well by not buying an Xbone it'll save me loads of cash to put toward the new PC rig I'm building and will pay for a dumptruck load of games off Steam and GOG.com

 

[Howling Din]

PC gaming may be more expensive in the short run but in the long run it is much cheaper.

Why? First of all, you don't need that great a rig anyways. Normally, 750? in well balanced components (just 150? more than a PS4 and the Xbone may be cheaper at first but will milk you with XBlive subscriptions forever) is more than enough and about continual upgrading... nobody except a few guys actually does that. Most people never upgrade and are fine. This is actually a great time to switch to PC gaming because once we have more detailed performance specs of the two next gen consoles, you can just buy a PC that is slightly better than their specs and will be fine for the whole next gaming generation.

Moreover, look at prices of console games vs. prices of PC games. I'm not just talking about brand-new titles here but also the way the prices of games change. PC games drop in prices much faster and much lower than console games. Plus you have access to a huge backlog of games you can grab for 10-15? off steam/gog/retail budget bins. Add the great indie titles.

In the end, you also won't be bound to a single company that can basically dictate everything to you. Chances are that with the termination of used games sales, M$ will be able to dictate prices for everything. Price drops? Unlikely when they can just sell everything for 60?. They will be abusing the shit out of that monopoly and will do anything to make switching away from their system as painful as possible.
And if you get a Xbone, they'll milk you hard.

How many PC gamers actually continuously upgrade their machine? It's expensive and pointless. I'm a PC gamer and have friends who are also PC gamers and I never witnessed this phenomenon.

A lot of people tend to rather over do the amount of problems they're going to face on a PC. The amount of times I see console players list "drivers" specifically as a reason for avoiding PC gaming is baffling.

Um... Little point out. The term "Master Race" comes from racism, not elitism. Two different things, you know.

The former derives from the latter.

Not true, elitism can exist even in communities where everyone is the same race.

 

[Woodsey]

PC gaming may be more expensive in the short run but in the long run it is much cheaper.

Why? First of all, you don't need that great a rig anyways. Normally, 750? in well balanced components (just 150? more than a PS4 and the Xbone may be cheaper at first but will milk you with XBlive subscriptions forever) is more than enough and about continual upgrading... nobody except a few guys actually does that. Most people never upgrade and are fine. This is actually a great time to switch to PC gaming because once we have more detailed performance specs of the two next gen consoles, you can just buy a PC that is slightly better than their specs and will be fine for the whole next gaming generation.

Moreover, look at prices of console games vs. prices of PC games. I'm not just talking about brand-new titles here but also the way the prices of games change. PC games drop in prices much faster and much lower than console games. Plus you have access to a huge backlog of games you can grab for 10-15? off steam/gog/retail budget bins. Add the great indie titles.

In the end, you also won't be bound to a single company that can basically dictate everything to you. Chances are that with the termination of used games sales, M$ will be able to dictate prices for everything. Price drops? Unlikely when they can just sell everything for 60?. They will be abusing the shit out of that monopoly and will do anything to make switching away from their system as painful as possible.
And if you get a Xbone, they'll milk you hard.

How many PC gamers actually continuously upgrade their machine? It's expensive and pointless. I'm a PC gamer and have friends who are also PC gamers and I never witnessed this phenomenon.

A lot of people tend to rather over do the amount of problems they're going to face on a PC. The amount of times I see console players list "drivers" specifically as a reason for avoiding PC gaming is baffling.

Um... Little point out. The term "Master Race" comes from racism, not elitism. Two different things, you know.

The former derives from the latter.

Not true, elitism can exist even in communities where everyone is the same race.

I know, that's why I didn't say elitism is derived from racism.

 

[Holythirteen]

Ugh... this is just gonna be a wall of text... there's so much I want to say... sigh...

If you read nothing else in this post, consider this: How much have you spent on your Xbox live subscription? Over $200? I spent $400+ easy, if you are an Xbox gamer, don't forget to factor that in before you start arguing about what a PC costs.

First off, I bought an XBox 360 and I got my money's worth, I loved that thing. This next generation makes me anxious, but I will keep enjoying my 360 for as long as I can.

That said, there are really only three solid arguments against PC gaming, and even as a PC gamer, I completely agree:
1-Building said gaming machine without getting screwed over by Futureshop/whatever
2-Ease of use/maintenance
3-Availability of specific titles

1-Building said gaming machine without getting screwed over by Futureshop/whatever
- People recommended Tom's hardware, I haven't dealt with them, I live in Calgary so I will probably deal with Memory Express,(If you're gonna post your machine specs and price you should also tell us where you bought it guys!)
Previously I bought a machine from a college professor who was starting a PC parts business, and I had college friends who helped me learn alot about pc's.

I know very little of the current market of hardware, but when I go to buy a computer I essentially know what questions to ask (what's a medium-high range video card, what type of hard drive storage should I use, what other types of medium-range parts would be good for a gaming machine, what's on sale), basically all you need is somebody with knowledge of current PC tech willing to give you some advice and answer questions, this really is the biggest hurdle, but if you know somebody, don't look down on them, sometimes when the PC-elitists are actually knowledgeable people, it's pretty easy to get them to help you build a machine, I expect to spend about $900 dollars on my upcoming machine (I have a half-decent monitor for general use and an HDTV with the proper ports for hardcore gaming so I don't include those in the price)

2-Ease of use/maintenance - Mostly knowing what programs to download and how to run them to keep your machine clean and efficient (anti-spyware, anti-virus, disk defragment, disabling unneeded services and programs), if you buy a machine from a local business, I'm sure they would be willing to help you understand the basics.

3-Availability of specific titles - Don't really have any points for this one, if you want to play multiplayer halo you are stuck with Microsoft sorry, but have fun. I kind of want to play the pc versions of FO3, FO:NV, and Skyrim and I'm certain they will look alot better on my new machine, and I've been extremely jealous of the fan-made Unofficial Patches because they have tons of fixes that the devs don't have time to work on, and then you have the mods. I can't even guess what PC games will offer you over consoles, I haven't been keeping up, and that could change drastically over the next couple years, I will leave that to other posters. I bought Tomb Raider last week for $25 on steam, I can't even run, it was just too good a deal to pass up. Others have said it, I will repeat it: Steam sales rock.

Sorry, I don't consider price as much of an issue, please try to understand:

-I spent about $400 on my xbox live subscription, how much did you pay? (*of course, if you have a PS3 and don't pay a subscription that takes some weight from my argument.... but I do kind of admire how Sony is treating the indie scene right now.)

-You do need a PC anyway right? I mean, you're on one right now right? What if it breaks? What if you move away from home or they give it to your sister or your Dad? That will probably cost you $200-$300 minimum anyway. I will quote another poster here:

The main difference is that a gaming PC is also used for everything any other computer is for. You can use it for school, work, browsing, tv, music, gaming, or anything else

And it will SCREAM at these tasks. Going from my old gaming rig to my parents' derpy machine is nails-on-a-chalkboard painful for me. But you won't be disappointed with using your gaming rig for day-to-day tasks, and if you have to buy a computer anyway, well lets just call that $250 you were going to spend anyway.

So let's go ultra-conservative and cut about $400 from the price of your new gaming rig (for me it was about $600 but whatever), that's money you were going to willingly spend anyway, but now instead you put it toward a machine that will last you about 6 years, and you will be blowing the Xbone away for all of those years. That is assuming that you already have an HDTV with ports that will work with your computer, I personally don't see why these machines have to be attached to small-ish monitors and computer desks when they are just as easy to attach to HDTV's and my living room couch.

Look, I know it can be intimidating trying to understand PC's and their hardware, even now I'm looking at these computer specs people are posting and I have no idea what any of that crap means, but I know how to look it up, and I tell you this knowledge will come in handy in whatever you do with your careers and lives. You might need another couple of computers for your kids somewhere down the line and at the very least a bit of work could save you about a thousand bucks.

Then again, if it's all about gaming to you, or if you don't feel capable enough to try to learn these sorts of things, I kinda understand, I can't really blame you. But you shouldn't be trying to convince others that ignorance is the best option, just because it's too hard for you to wrap your head around, hell, some of the people in this thread could be the next Steve Jobs or Larry Page.

Can you see why people may feel barred from the club when they see an xbox 360 on the shelf for $120?

(The cheapest price I could find was about $250 canadian for a new machine with a decent hard drive. If that is a new machine please linky.)

I do sorta agree, but I thought we were talking about the upcoming generation?

I would totally recommend that a new gamer get an XBox 360, for the price it is and the games you can get for it, that is an awesome deal, I highly recommend it over a gaming PC. I'm not sure where this "new gamer" has been living the past 7 years but yeah you can't go wrong with a 360 for a great single player experience with lots of available titles.

... although, if you want to play any games online that will cost you another $60 a year, and I would assume this new gamer would prefer to buy used games as they are much cheaper(some good titles may not even be available new anymore and the digital-download prices may not have come down a reasonable amount, I happen to know that my personal favourite titles are not available either new or as a digital download), though if a game is only a year old it may ease your conscience somewhat to buy new, past a couple years or so I'm not sure they really care anymore...

*snip alot of helpful information*

Awesome Post, you are the exact opposite of an evil PC elitist. Kudos. THIS is what the PC gamers should be doing.

All that said, I'll probably buy a PS4 sometime next gen, but I suspect they will have anti-used, always-on policies similar to Xbones, they just haven't said anything yet. But yeah, the new gaming rig is a lock, I'm getting that thing.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

I've had Bertha's experience, but with Elder Scrolls. And I have to agree with everything else said. Apply this Microsoft 'logic' to any other product. How would that go? 'I'm sorry, you have to get permission from Honda before selling your old Civic, and then give them a cut of your asking price.' Seriously?

I KNEW I wasn't the only person who felt this way! I knew that I couldn't have been the only person who noted the irony of companies releasing sequel after sequel, yet refusing to implement BC so you could play the first game in the series. Both concepts are frustrating in my opinion, but combining the two together just borders on stupidity and lack of respect for your previous achievements.