If the cost of the TV shouldn't be counted toward the price of a console, then the cost of computer components that you'd get even if not for gaming shouldn't count toward the cost of a gaming computer. If a gaming computer costs $100 for a video card, plus components that you'd buy because you need a computer for other purposes, then making it a gaming computer only costs you $100. And that's surely cheaper than a console.
Wow you guys are really grasping for anything to make your pc cost less than a console.
Why stop there??? Go ahead and add to the cost of consules the stand the tv sits on, or if it's mounted to the wall the cost of your house..lol...add in the chair your sitting on.. and hey just throw in the electric bill too.
If this is how you compare prices your buying something you really need to take a step back and listen to yourself.
First, Quizzical is only using your own logic. You argue that the price of a television shouldn't be argued as part of the price of a console, because people have them anyways. Therefore, you submit that we should exclude anything from the cost of gaming that someone would have anyways. Therefore, if we're to exclude the cost of the television from consoles, we should exclude the cost of all non-gaming components in a PC.
For me, that would mean taking out my two Radeon HD 5770s (which presently cost ~$260 combined), as I'd use the rest of my system's considerable power to do other intensive tasks anyways if I didn't play games on it. On the flip side, if one took either of the PCs I built for my parents, whether the $300 I built for them a few years back, or the $350 PC I built for them a couple of months ago, either would blow away a PS3 or an XBOX 360 with the addition of a $50-$70 video card. Like your TV example, they ALREADY HAVE these PCs, so if they wanted to game with them, they'd only need to spend $50-$70, as opposed to $300 for a whole console.
When I make a gaming computer, I spend about $700 making a reasonably powerful computer to suit my needs for media and photo-editing, and $300 making it capable of high-end gaming. That's spending $300 on gaming, by your own logic, not $1000. Likewise, when you purcahse a television, and later a PS3, you purchase the $1000 TV (give or take) to have a TV to watch, and $300-$400 for the PS3 to game. If we count that the same way I just counted my costs, you paid $300-$400 to play games. If you want to count entire setupts, then I spend $1000, and you spend $1300-$1400 (just adjust the cost of the TV as necessary).
Secondly, no one here is claiming that concoles are necessarily a bad deal. In fact, most of us have gone out of our way to say that that's what we're not insinuating, so stop making strawman arguments. Maybe the console better fit your play style; maybe having your gaming system run through your TV was more advantageous to your lifestyle. Maybe you were going to spring for a blu-ray player anyways back when they were $200 a pop by themselves (as of right now they're about $80, and a PC BRD drive can be had for about $50).
Whatever the situation, what is not true is that PC hardware is a "ripoff". It's nothing of the sort. What PCs give you are a more powerful, more versatile machine for more money.
EDIT: My point is NOT that I'm a console gamer, in fact I love to game on a PC, I just wish to discuss the price of PC hardware that I find outrageous. Not just because of the hardware itself, but because the softwares we use evolves very quickly too.
Here's the thing.
Consoles sell for around 300$ right now. They have a processor, graphics card, web browser, wi-fi. They can play all games in relatively high settings for consoles that have been on the market for a few years.
Now when it comes to computers, you can barely run Black Ops in high settings with a 3-4 years old graphics card, and computer.
2gigs of ram was high 4 years ago, now the standard is 4 to 8 gigs. hard drives are slowing down our pc's now that games fit a blu-ray rather than a dvd, and what do we get on pc's? uncompressed textures rather than optimized ones.
4 years old graphics cards will quickly overheat or do white artefacts in game because they cannot fit all the textures, so an upgrade is required.
let's look at the cost:
New graphics card - 400$
Requirement: New power supply: 100$
Need new ram (DDR3): 120$ (4 go)
New ram = new motherboard : 100$
New Board and GFX Card = New Processor: 200-400$
SSD Drive: 100$
TOTAL:
1100$ average (if you keep the old monitor, 1300$ average with a new monitor with HDMI)
So let's say 1300$.
Do you want to invest 1300$ every 4 years to play video games or 300$?
The only reason you have to upgrade between, is that computer hardware companies encourage game companies NOT to optimize their graphics and/or code to run smooth on YOUR machine.
Its true today a console is $299 - $399, but unfortunately there is a major problem. This is their cost today, when they were released, the consoles were Extremely Expensive. I remember $699 for a PS3 and $599 for an Xbox360 and there was a high failure rate for both. Ignoring the failure rate for the sake of simplicity, if you wished to have decent graphics, back then you needed to pay $500+ for a 720p TV and $800 - $1000 for a decent HD-TV. HDMI was actually new and when released Widescreen monitors at 1920x1080 were very expensive too. Lets not forget the games the consoles came packed with were lame and players would spend $100 - $150 on games, along with another $100 on peripherals. Lets not forget buying bigger hard drives as time went by..
The major difference between consoles and PCs are that if you have a set of games you truly love and are involved in the multiplayer community of the game (or even singleplayer like Civ Games), All you need is a PC and you won't have to upgrade ever unless something breaks down.
I know people who have good computers who the only upgrade they have bought in a 2 - 3 year period is a new video card. But there are those who have used their PCs for 10+ years playing Older games as the communities for Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Original Counterstrike and other games still exist...In fact once a new console game or sequal to a game is made, the console community migrates to the new game or console and leaves the old one in the dust.
I am still in contact with communities from 10+ years ago and those guys still are maintaining and showing undying loyalty to the games they love to play.
Oh yes, so that you know...Most Console Games go out of print. In short, once you decide to buy a console, you can only really find games that are 2 - 3 years old. In fact so many people on the Sony side of things own a Playstation 3 and a Playstation Portable because sequals go between the handheld and consoles, so thats an extra $300. Some have Japanese version playstation network accounts because some sequals are not released stateside and the ones that are, LACK updates and the games are watered down. If you want to play your old favorite console games and your old console BREAKS, you have to actually buy the game through playstation network or be out of luck. In short, you have to PURCHASE again the games you owned before a console broke...
In fact, a PC allows you to run console games through emulators and due to backwards compatability there is so much you can do.. The last client I built a comp for had a 460 GTX running on Linux (which is free) with console emulators along with Wine and all he does is play old games. The computer was built for $500. He has found all his favorite games from 1993 - 2004 and have been able to run them on Wine + Linux and play tons of console emulators and downloading the games from all over the net....
Thanks to emulators, I still play "Sonic CD" (My favorite sonic game ever made)
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Given that the only part of my computer that's there for gaming are my $300 video cards, yes, games absolutely will look better on my $300 of gaming hardware than on yours. They'd look better on $50 worth of GPU hardware as well.
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Given that the only part of my computer that's there for gaming are my $300 video cards, yes, games absolutely will look better on my $300 of gaming hardware than on yours. They'd look better on $50 worth of GPU hardware as well.
I asked $300 computer. Not the $300 video card that you'll need to replace next year with a newer more up2date card.
No need to answer, i'm sure people that still think with open minds know the answer.
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Maybe not for $300, but because you sent out the challenge, I just went onto new egg and put together a pretty nice PC with:
4 gb DDR3 ram
3.2ghz phantom II Dual Core
evga 450 GTS GPU
500gb HD, cd/dvd drive
mid tower case
430watt PSU
and a mobo that works with all of the above hardware
oh, and cant forget about the thermal compound
All of that for $430 after mail in rebates and everything. Yes it is $100 more than a Xbox 360, but I can guarantee that it will run games on a much higher visual level than either xbox 360 or PS3. Seriously, play Fallout 3 on Xbox 360 or PS3, then on a low grade gaming PC, it is night and day.
And you cant forget this a PC. For that extra $100 you get super fast context switching, and does infinitely more things besides gaming than a console would. And you needed a PC anyway, so it really only cost you $80 more than what you would require out of your normal daily PC ($80 was the price of the EVGA 450 GTS after mail in rebate). If anything you could make the debate that using a gaming PC to combine your PC and gaming needs will even save you money.
As I said in a earlier post, price is not the issue of the console dominance. It comes down to being casual. People dont like to be considered hardcore gamers because they will be in the pool of being a nerd and most people dont want to be a nerd. Console gaming is considered cool and in style, PC gaming is considered for nerds.
East Carolina University, Computer Science BS, 2011 -------------------- Current game: DAOC
Games played and quit: L2, PlanetSide, RF Online, GuildWars, SWG, COH/COV, Vanguard, LOTRO, WoW, WW2 Online, FFXI, Auto-Assault, EVE Online, ShadowBane, RYL, Rappelz, Last Chaos, Myst Online, POTBS, EQ2, Warhammer Online, AoC, Aion, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Allods, Darkfall.
As someone said, computer gaming has always been somewhat more expensive than consoles on the onset. Plus, in the past with MMOs people used to play one MMO for years without changing that game.
People who are arguing video card cost as being the prohibitive factor are being someone dishonest. Stating that "For the same money, I could have a 360 and all these games for years" is actually going to cost you MORE in the long run.
The 'typical' console game is going to run you $50 EACH.
You will play that game and beat it (unless it's Oblivion) in ONE month. You know you will. And when you are done, you will never play that console game again, ever. Console games simply don't give you replay value on the whole because once the majority "beat the game", they stop playing it. You can't "beat" an mmo.
So you trade the game in to Ebay or Gamestop and get half what you paid for it or 3/4ths if you are lucky, and go spend another $50 bucks on something else.
Now you're out $25/month on a console game. But most console gamers don't have just "one" game.. they got 3 or 4 they play at a time.
Add all that up, then compare that to a $15/mo sub on a MMO that you play for several years and you come out about the same for that rig in one year's time.
Better even when you consider everything you can do on a computer that you can't do on a console system over the same amount of time.
So, build your own computer ($1,000 for a pretty good one), pick your MMO ($15/month) and play it until your hearts content > cheaper than one limited console and tons of rebuying games @ $50/shot.
If you can't afford to do both, that's life pretty much. It's called making a choice. You just have to budget your money better and figure out which is a priority for you; computer gaming OR console gaming.
Companies are now trying to make MMOs fit consoles but so far they are turning out things that end up crappy on both of them by doing it. Just be patient until a few years from now, then you'll have everything you want.. a mmo that plays great on a console.
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Maybe not for $300, but because you sent out the challenge, I just went onto new egg and put together a pretty nice PC with:
4 gb DDR3 ram
3.2ghz phantom II Dual Core
evga 450 GTS GPU
500gb HD, cd/dvd drive
mid tower case
430watt PSU
and a mobo that works with all of the above hardware
oh, and cant forget about the thermal compound
All of that for $430 after mail in rebates and everything. Yes it is $100 more than a Xbox 360, but I can guarantee that it will run games on a much higher visual level than either xbox 360 or PS3. Seriously, play Fallout 3 on Xbox 360 or PS3, then on a low grade gaming PC, it is night and day.
And you cant forget this a PC. For that extra $100 you get super fast context switching, and does infinitely more things besides gaming than a console would. And you needed a PC anyway, so it really only cost you $80 more than what you would require out of your normal daily PC ($80 was the price of the EVGA 450 GTS after mail in rebate). If anything you could make the debate that using a gaming PC to combine your PC and gaming needs will even save you money.
As I said in a earlier post, price is not the issue of the console dominance. It comes down to being casual. People dont like to be considered hardcore gamers because they will be in the pool of being a nerd and most people dont want to be a nerd. Console gaming is considered cool and in style, PC gaming is considered for nerds.
That's a pretty decent rig for the money, but I wouldn't put a 430 watt PSU in anything.
The power demands are too great for a 430 watt PSU. It would be over taxed and short lived.
I would go with nothing less than 550 watt, and honestly I would recommend 600 watts in case you want to upgrade to a more power hungry GPU in the future.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
The power demands are too great for a 430 watt PSU. It would be over taxed and short lived.
I would go with nothing less than 550 watt, and honestly I would recommend 600 watts in case you want to upgrade to a more power hungry GPU in the future.
The system he picked would never draw 250 W from the power supply. A good quality 430 W power supply is plenty for that.
The problem is that he probably didn't pick a good quality 430 W power supply. The Antec EarthWatts and EarthWatts Green are decent enough, and the Seasonic S12II is quite nice, but that would stretch the budget. The rest of the 430 W power supplies on New Egg probably aren't very good. And yes, I'm including the Corsair CX430 and Antec Basiq in that analysis, not just the usual cheap junk brands. Though they're not complete garbage like the $17 (before shipping) Linkworld.
Don't focus too much on the nominal wattage. The question isn't what fake wattage number a manufacturer decided to put on the packaging. It's how much wattage the power supply can deliver well. And if a power supply could safely deliver 100 W more all day long than you'll draw from it under an artificial stress test, then it's got plenty of power for your needs.
Actually I have to agree with this, at least in my country.
Buying a PS3 is around 300-400€, but buying a PC that runs games recently launched is at least 800€, and it's not that good of a computer. I go to the stores and most of them don't sell desktops with more than 4GB Ram, what a fail. And they rarely give the info about helping us build our own desktop.
AND with laptops is even worst. My gf bought a good Hp laptop for 1000€ and 1 month ago, less than 3 years later, it got the graphics card burned, but it still worked. It just got completely broken this week, and she doesn't play games except Sims. What a waste. And it's rare to see a store that gives a person the opportunity to build their own desktop - completely the opposite of USA stores. Since we can't build them in parts, their prices are huge in order to force clients to buy not-so-good laptops. I have to congratulate Asus and packard bell, they sure give us better completed products with lower prices, but still...
So, for the sake of the money, buying a complete computer in order to be able to play recent games is expensive. If we want to buy to be a blast: 1500-2000€, and might have still 1-2 flaws. And almost never we have the opportunity to chose the components of the computer in stores. Without that, the customer don't have the certainty what is best in a computer to build it in parts, which means forcing the customer to buy a complete, expensive and not-so-good computer. And a lot of those expensive computer have intel graphics card, which is really bad for games but the employes still say they run all the games (that's how my parents were completely fooled).
I even have difficulty to find power supplies with more than 530W. Almost never I can find 600W.
And I hadn't included monitors and LCDs in the desktop price.... those are really expensive, almost the same or even more than the entire computer.
The only solution to have a good computer with a fair price, is building my own in a computer store that's hiding in some street that nobody goes, or buy on the internet (which can't be reliable all times). Usually those stores have the best things, but to find "that" store with the best components for all parts of the computer is really hard.
The problem is ALL these games are Winxp 32 bit games and people are buying 64 bit systems.The Cpu's are actually garbage multi core,basically 2-4 crap chips they are selling us old crap and combining the mmake it seem a whoel lot better.Ya on statistical programs that can measure stuff like that,but in reality gaming,these systems usually do not perform well at all.
It will probably be when devs atart making 64 bit ONLY games,that we will start too see huge improvements,code matching the system and multi cores UTILIZED,not just recognized.
What is happening is these cheaply coded 32 bit games are bottlenecked,so the easy way out is tons more Ram,which so happens is a slower part of your system.
Perhaps it will all come together in another 20 years lol.,Maybe there is some samrt people somewhere building a new more efficient Windows system,using better API's.John Carmack made the great Quake series using OpenGl,at the time ,it seemed the way to go,but now a days seems less supported,Microsoft owns us all,and rents us out to Nvidia and ATI.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Coincidently, I just started looking at the emulators available for PCs because I cannot find modern games that I enjoy and the options are good and the games still impressive.
Think there's more utility in PCs that makes them better value and more flexibility and not stuck with the dictates of the console manufacters and their redundancy schedule for the console. Perhaps if you house-share and divide the cost of the console by everyone that is good value Eg stream music/movies and play games.
Personally I am willing to pay for the versatility of a Computer over a Console. I don't use my Computer for just gaming which is about all a console is good for. I also use it for internet, e-mail, word processing, spread sheets, picture viewing and editting, video viewing and editting, video conferencing, and more. A console can do some of that, but does not have the power and versatility to do ALL of that. Plus, if something breaks on my computer, I can fix/replace it normally pretty easily but with a console, you may as well buy a new one.
Plainly put, console are good for gaming and that is about all, computers are good for everything else.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I can build a gaming PC with more than enough RAM(DDR3 4-6GB), more than enough CPU power and a GREAT graphics card such as rthe GTX 460 for $600. You can pretty much max any game with that card as I have it in my current PC and everything plays smoothly on and I play a ton of games.
It is not $1,000 for a PC nowadays.
I'd rather pay $600 and be able to do all you can do on a PC in addition to playing games at over 60 FPS in HD resolutions.
I also have a 360, but the games are more expensive, the games do not look near as good either.
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Given that the only part of my computer that's there for gaming are my $300 video cards, yes, games absolutely will look better on my $300 of gaming hardware than on yours. They'd look better on $50 worth of GPU hardware as well.
I asked $300 computer. Not the $300 video card that you'll need to replace next year with a newer more up2date card.
No need to answer, i'm sure people that still think with open minds know the answer.
Why should I have to figure in the cost of my entire computer when the entire computer isn't used for gaming?
When then should you be able to exclude the cost of your television?
I have an idea, let's play your little game here, for a moment. I'll factor in the cost of my entire PC, but since we're no longer talking about just gaming gear here, but rather my entire computer, I'll list all the things my PC does that your PS3 doesn't.
-My PC is a programming platform. In particular, I have software for programming in C++ and Python. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC is a high end photo and video editor. Your PS3 doesn't do that (and even if you tried, it wouldn't even have enough ram to physically load a photo or video to edit).
-My PC runs a printer and scanner that I frequently use. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC runs skype, a common standard for quick text or voice communication with others, as well as Google Talk, to allow me to peruse my email inbox without having to open a browser. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC acts as a remote shooting device for my camera, not only allowing for remote control over a USB cable, but for me to access live view on my PC screen. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC can open and edit office documents in either MS or Openoffice formats. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC runs my choice of torrent software. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC can use an array of dozens of internet browsers, and supports the absolute latest versions of all internet standards. Your PS3 doesn't do that. In fact your PS3 doesn't even have Silverlight support.
-My PC offers a vast array of storage for me to work with (and even my 1TB is piddling compared to what's easily and cheaply obtained). At the $300 price point, your PS3 offers you only one fiftieth of that. My PC has a quad core 3.8ghz CPU (that's midly overclocked), 4GB of RAM, and $300 GPUs. Your PS3 has a single PPC core for its CPU supported by a small number of very limited supplemental processing units, a palty 256mb of ram, and a $30 GPU.
If we're going to only talk about the gaming capabilities of my PC, then I'm only going to count the $300 I spent adding those capabilities to this machine. If you want to factor in the cost of my entire PC, then fine, I will also factor in the capabilities of my entire PC, and NOT just its gaming capabilities (because that's what $1000 bought me, the full range of capabilities, and not just the ability to play games).
So yes, your PS3 only cost you $300, congratulations. In exchange for that sum you got a $300 computer with the limitations of a $300 computer. I paid $1000 for mine, and it bought me a far more functional computer that not only does everything the PS3 does better, but does many things the PS3 flat out doesn't do, and can't do. Thank you for making my point for me.
You're right, I bet the "open-minded" people here, namely those who aren't you, will clearly the differences here. Consoles have their place, but PCs are superior, plain and simple, and it's what you get in exchange for their higher costs.
Just 2 questions: what is the minimum wage per week or month in USA? and what is the average salary?
Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour here.
As for average salary, that depends on what kind of average you want. The mean salary is quite high, but the median salary is much, much lower because a large portion of our nation's income is concentrated at the very top with the wealthiest people.
Just 2 questions: what is the minimum wage per week or month in USA? and what is the average salary?
Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour here.
As for average salary, that depends on what kind of average you want. The mean salary is quite high, but the median salary is much, much lower because a large portion of our nation's income is concentrated at the very top with the wealthiest people.
Thank you. I was asking for the median, but only answering the first question is enough for me.
I don't know what are the costs and taxes in your country, but I will only consider the minimal wage and computer prices in your country with mine.
Let's see, how much would cost, for ex, this computer:
PC Desktop CPU Intel® Core™ i7-870 - 2,93GHz / 6GB DDR3 / 1TB / 7 HP / DVD-RW DL LightScribe / NVIDIA® GeForce GT420 2GB
?
EDIT: AKA "HP Pavilion Elite HPE-410t" (this deskopt is one of the new best computers sellng right now in my country).
EDIT2: I searched and found out that it's around $1,091.98 (825,71€). And you have a 1 month minimum wage of $1160 (8hours/day, 5 days/week, no taxes included). At least 1 month = 1 desktop
In my country, Portugal, it costs 1149€ ($1.519,53), with a minimum wage of 475€ ($628,18) per month (8hours/day, 5 days/week, no taxes included and it may increase to 500€). At least 3 months = 1 desktop.
See the difference? Even If we had only USA computer prices or only USA min. wages, it would be 2 months = 1 desktop.
Geez, I want to buy a computer in USA and bring it here in my bag tax free
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Given that the only part of my computer that's there for gaming are my $300 video cards, yes, games absolutely will look better on my $300 of gaming hardware than on yours. They'd look better on $50 worth of GPU hardware as well.
I asked $300 computer. Not the $300 video card that you'll need to replace next year with a newer more up2date card.
No need to answer, i'm sure people that still think with open minds know the answer.
Why should I have to figure in the cost of my entire computer when the entire computer isn't used for gaming?
When then should you be able to exclude the cost of your television?
I have an idea, let's play your little game here, for a moment. I'll factor in the cost of my entire PC, but since we're no longer talking about just gaming gear here, but rather my entire computer, I'll list all the things my PC does that your PS3 doesn't.
-My PC is a programming platform. In particular, I have software for programming in C++ and Python. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC is a high end photo and video editor. Your PS3 doesn't do that (and even if you tried, it wouldn't even have enough ram to physically load a photo or video to edit).
-My PC runs a printer and scanner that I frequently use. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC runs skype, a common standard for quick text or voice communication with others, as well as Google Talk, to allow me to peruse my email inbox without having to open a browser. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC acts as a remote shooting device for my camera, not only allowing for remote control over a USB cable, but for me to access live view on my PC screen. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC can open and edit office documents in either MS or Openoffice formats. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC runs my choice of torrent software. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC can use an array of dozens of internet browsers, and supports the absolute latest versions of all internet standards. Your PS3 doesn't do that. In fact your PS3 doesn't even have Silverlight support.
-My PC offers a vast array of storage for me to work with (and even my 1TB is piddling compared to what's easily and cheaply obtained). At the $300 price point, your PS3 offers you only one fiftieth of that. My PC has a quad core 3.8ghz CPU (that's midly overclocked), 4GB of RAM, and $300 GPUs. Your PS3 has a single PPC core for its CPU supported by a small number of very limited supplemental processing units, a palty 256mb of ram, and a $30 GPU.
If we're going to only talk about the gaming capabilities of my PC, then I'm only going to count the $300 I spent adding those capabilities to this machine. If you want to factor in the cost of my entire PC, then fine, I will also factor in the capabilities of my entire PC, and NOT just its gaming capabilities (because that's what $1000 bought me, the full range of capabilities, and not just the ability to play games).
So yes, your PS3 only cost you $300, congratulations. In exchange for that sum you got a $300 computer with the limitations of a $300 computer. I paid $1000 for mine, and it bought me a far more functional computer that not only does everything the PS3 does better, but does many things the PS3 flat out doesn't do, and can't do. Thank you for making my point for me.
You're right, I bet the "open-minded" people here, namely those who aren't you, will clearly the differences here. Consoles have their place, but PCs are superior, plain and simple, and it's what you get in exchange for their higher costs.
I dont care what your computer does. Do you think your the only person that has a computer capable of doing these things? You need to use that printer your so proud of and make a copy of your 'great computer post' so that when (insert newest game on market here) comes out and you cant play it because you need a new video card and you feel like complaining about it, you cant just scan it with that awsome printer and copy it onto the forum.
You have to upgrade pc's to continue playing pc games. You dont have to upgrade consoles. I dont have to upgrade my computer to surf the internet or use my printer and scanner.
To play that newest game you need that newest video card and the newest video cards are very high. They go down in price later when better cards come out but by then you'll need the better card that just came out, and on an on. That card is only going to last you around 2 years.
I wonder if you even read the opening post and know what this thread is about. You dont have to get your feelings hurt by my saying that a tv shouldn't get added to the cost of a console gaming machine for a way to justify prices. Thats really reaching.
Only your last sentence was even relative to the op. Funny that your last sentence was a complete reversal of everything you've been saying so far and you finally admitted that pc's are a "higher cost". Of coarse a pc running a game at high settings looks better than a console...cost is whats being talked about.
This thread seems stupid to me. I built up my pc for ~500$ or less 4-5 years ago. It can run almost any MMORPG/single-player game which comes out. Some ofcourse not on best graphics, but medium it is all. Only people who needs to upgrade often is graphic whores. Medium graphics are pretty good, you only need better if running on real high def monitor. Like 50cm or more. Also I have 7 years old laptop and it still runs most of MMO.
And talking about prices... You can build comp for 200$ or less nowdays and it will run mostly everything, ofc not on best graphics but not worst as well. What costs most in PC is video card. 8600 Nvidia is enough for any MMO and costs 150$ or so. You can use even 6XXX series which costs like what? 50$?
Running on 2gb of rams myself and havent encountered problems with it. 2gbs is what? 20$?
So my thoughts is that if you are not graphic whore/stupid you can buy PC cheaper then console and enjoy games on quite good graphics...
EDIT:
People who uses PC usually forget to wipe/reinstall their OS every few months or so. Ofcourse if you dont clear you PC often it clogs up with shit and runs slower and slower. Also people forget to upgrade drivers and other software. If you do those things PC can last up to 10 years easily. That is sort of downside for casual user compared to console as console requires no maintanence...
EDIT2:
People talk about new video cards, but realy, how many games uses them? Maybe few new shooters, if you are uber fan of shooters you might think about new cards. But all RPG, Strategy, Adventure doesnt even use up capabilites of 8600 or older video cards. Dont know which cards series of Nvidia started having px shader 3.0, but that one is enough...
Final EDIT (lol):
My 4-5years old pc worth 500$ at time I bought can play most games these days on good settings, to name few so you wont say i dont give example: SC2, ME2, Darkfall, Fallout 3, Civ 5, Dragon Age, HP (just tried, fucking shooter but ran on good graph), Divinity 2, SWTFU2 high graph.
So yea, it has been 5 years and I still have to encounter game which wouldnt be shooter and I couldnt play on good graphics...
I would like to take this opportunity to laugh at what a ridiculous video card that is. 2 GB of video memory for a card based on the bottom chip in Nvidia's modern lineup, and with essentially half of the chip disabled, no less. For settings at which 512 MB isn't enough, the GPU wouldn't be powerful enough with 2 GB, either.
Originally posted by travamars Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money. I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change. $300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
There's the thing that keeps getting overlooked. You DO NOT need to keep upgrading your PC. You just want to because you can keep getting better graphics every upgrade. An Xbox 360's graphics look marginally better than they did at release only due to programming expertise that has come with time, but overall the graphics have not really increased.
You can KEEP the same PC you've been using for 5 years just like you've been using your Xbox 360 for 5 years. The graphics level you can attain on either system will simply be about the same as it was 5 years ago. On a PC you just have to turn down the settings till they look like they're 5 years old. On the Xbox 360 every game you put in will automatically look like it's about 5 years old.
You just *see* the option to turn up the graphics on the PC.. which you cannot do on a console.. and feel that you should upgrade to take advantage of it. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO THIS. On a new game just turn the graphics down, plug it into a TV and sit 6 feet away it'll look exactly like a console, or play it on your monitor and it will look exactly like it did 5 years ago instead of having new quality shadows and bump mapping and lighting effects we couldn't have back then.
you need to read your earlier posts again. You've totally backtracked and mixed up all your answers till your reply was totally confusing. Wish i could give a reply but i couldn't make sense out of what you were trying to say.
Well excuse me but i dont see your posts making any more sense than mine.I dont see how your habits of having few beers are related to the price discussion either and how come bluray capability in PS3 is a extra utility but in PC it turns into fanboyism
But you said earlier "I dont see any games released to consoles that are worth my time"......your answer in your reply made no sense.
I still stand behind my statement that "I dont see games releases to consoles that are worth my time" being abit different than claiming "the FEW single player games worth playing are on PS3/360"
The thread title was "Computer gaming market pulled-back by video cards market? Prices a rip-off?" but when u actually bother to read the OP and following posts the questions asked arent limited to that.
Here let me give you some citations from OP:
"Consoles sell for around 300$ right now. They have a processor, graphics card, web browser, wi-fi." and "Now when it comes to computers, you can barely run Black Ops in high settings with a 3-4 years old graphics card, and computer." is a direct comparison between two different platforms and isnt a pure speculation of PC hardware prices... been allready covered .. move on
"The OS doesn't justify the hardware price." u get what u pay for that has allready been said and the fact that your circling around the claim that u cannot play latest games with 300$ PC is stupid because it seems you are expecting PC to give more GFX and perfomance for the same money ... most new games can be tweaked to run on older PC with similar GFX compared to consoles = move on
"What if you COULD use a mouse and keyboard on a PS3, and BROWSE your files?" yet another question that puts the situation into direct PC vs Console comparison ergo not a pure speculation of prices.
"I seriously don't see how you could do a Fortress Raid on Aion with that system... Or do a raid in WOW with this machine without simply watching your computer go like "chunk chunk chunk"." another example of expecting more with less/same cost ... Aion and WoW for consoles c'mon
If anything ... i view consoles as the main reason why technological advances are slowing down in the PC market .. its like if people would have been perfectly happy with horses we wouldnt have cars now would we ?
I do see a big problem dealing with ppl that ask a question to get an answer to ask another question when most of the stuff ur repeating in page 8-10 of this thread have been covered at page 1 & 2
I like consoles .. the problem is theres only really one console on market .. the Wii , others are just mini-PC's that have a marketing agenda to prove their "superior" GFX , sounds , storage capability and utility ( woohoo i can browse net and watch bluray )wich are proved to be false claims by numerous posters smarter than you and me combined.
And yes stating your opinion is a direct attack but calling others "PC only Fanboys" isnt ?
Comments
First, Quizzical is only using your own logic. You argue that the price of a television shouldn't be argued as part of the price of a console, because people have them anyways. Therefore, you submit that we should exclude anything from the cost of gaming that someone would have anyways. Therefore, if we're to exclude the cost of the television from consoles, we should exclude the cost of all non-gaming components in a PC.
For me, that would mean taking out my two Radeon HD 5770s (which presently cost ~$260 combined), as I'd use the rest of my system's considerable power to do other intensive tasks anyways if I didn't play games on it. On the flip side, if one took either of the PCs I built for my parents, whether the $300 I built for them a few years back, or the $350 PC I built for them a couple of months ago, either would blow away a PS3 or an XBOX 360 with the addition of a $50-$70 video card. Like your TV example, they ALREADY HAVE these PCs, so if they wanted to game with them, they'd only need to spend $50-$70, as opposed to $300 for a whole console.
When I make a gaming computer, I spend about $700 making a reasonably powerful computer to suit my needs for media and photo-editing, and $300 making it capable of high-end gaming. That's spending $300 on gaming, by your own logic, not $1000. Likewise, when you purcahse a television, and later a PS3, you purchase the $1000 TV (give or take) to have a TV to watch, and $300-$400 for the PS3 to game. If we count that the same way I just counted my costs, you paid $300-$400 to play games. If you want to count entire setupts, then I spend $1000, and you spend $1300-$1400 (just adjust the cost of the TV as necessary).
Secondly, no one here is claiming that concoles are necessarily a bad deal. In fact, most of us have gone out of our way to say that that's what we're not insinuating, so stop making strawman arguments. Maybe the console better fit your play style; maybe having your gaming system run through your TV was more advantageous to your lifestyle. Maybe you were going to spring for a blu-ray player anyways back when they were $200 a pop by themselves (as of right now they're about $80, and a PC BRD drive can be had for about $50).
Whatever the situation, what is not true is that PC hardware is a "ripoff". It's nothing of the sort. What PCs give you are a more powerful, more versatile machine for more money.
Its true today a console is $299 - $399, but unfortunately there is a major problem. This is their cost today, when they were released, the consoles were Extremely Expensive. I remember $699 for a PS3 and $599 for an Xbox360 and there was a high failure rate for both. Ignoring the failure rate for the sake of simplicity, if you wished to have decent graphics, back then you needed to pay $500+ for a 720p TV and $800 - $1000 for a decent HD-TV. HDMI was actually new and when released Widescreen monitors at 1920x1080 were very expensive too. Lets not forget the games the consoles came packed with were lame and players would spend $100 - $150 on games, along with another $100 on peripherals. Lets not forget buying bigger hard drives as time went by..
The major difference between consoles and PCs are that if you have a set of games you truly love and are involved in the multiplayer community of the game (or even singleplayer like Civ Games), All you need is a PC and you won't have to upgrade ever unless something breaks down.
I know people who have good computers who the only upgrade they have bought in a 2 - 3 year period is a new video card. But there are those who have used their PCs for 10+ years playing Older games as the communities for Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Original Counterstrike and other games still exist...In fact once a new console game or sequal to a game is made, the console community migrates to the new game or console and leaves the old one in the dust.
I am still in contact with communities from 10+ years ago and those guys still are maintaining and showing undying loyalty to the games they love to play.
Oh yes, so that you know...Most Console Games go out of print. In short, once you decide to buy a console, you can only really find games that are 2 - 3 years old. In fact so many people on the Sony side of things own a Playstation 3 and a Playstation Portable because sequals go between the handheld and consoles, so thats an extra $300. Some have Japanese version playstation network accounts because some sequals are not released stateside and the ones that are, LACK updates and the games are watered down. If you want to play your old favorite console games and your old console BREAKS, you have to actually buy the game through playstation network or be out of luck. In short, you have to PURCHASE again the games you owned before a console broke...
In fact, a PC allows you to run console games through emulators and due to backwards compatability there is so much you can do.. The last client I built a comp for had a 460 GTX running on Linux (which is free) with console emulators along with Wine and all he does is play old games. The computer was built for $500. He has found all his favorite games from 1993 - 2004 and have been able to run them on Wine + Linux and play tons of console emulators and downloading the games from all over the net....
Thanks to emulators, I still play "Sonic CD" (My favorite sonic game ever made)
The fact is, you don't have to spend 400 bucks on a video card. If you do, you're a moron.
You can spend 75-100 bucks and still get great performance.
Like i said in an earlier post my computer can play any game i want. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3. My computer has been upgraded twice while i've owned the xbox, and i'm sure in 2 to 3 years i'll need to upgrade again if i still want to play the latest pc game. I'll still be able to play the console games without spending any more money.
I see by you 'pc only fanboys' that it's ok to add bullshit cost to console systems, but having an up2date computer can be done with pocket change.
$300 xbox 360 or PS3...would your games look as good on a $300 computer?
Given that the only part of my computer that's there for gaming are my $300 video cards, yes, games absolutely will look better on my $300 of gaming hardware than on yours. They'd look better on $50 worth of GPU hardware as well.
I asked $300 computer. Not the $300 video card that you'll need to replace next year with a newer more up2date card.
No need to answer, i'm sure people that still think with open minds know the answer.
Maybe not for $300, but because you sent out the challenge, I just went onto new egg and put together a pretty nice PC with:
4 gb DDR3 ram
3.2ghz phantom II Dual Core
evga 450 GTS GPU
500gb HD, cd/dvd drive
mid tower case
430watt PSU
and a mobo that works with all of the above hardware
oh, and cant forget about the thermal compound
All of that for $430 after mail in rebates and everything. Yes it is $100 more than a Xbox 360, but I can guarantee that it will run games on a much higher visual level than either xbox 360 or PS3. Seriously, play Fallout 3 on Xbox 360 or PS3, then on a low grade gaming PC, it is night and day.
And you cant forget this a PC. For that extra $100 you get super fast context switching, and does infinitely more things besides gaming than a console would. And you needed a PC anyway, so it really only cost you $80 more than what you would require out of your normal daily PC ($80 was the price of the EVGA 450 GTS after mail in rebate). If anything you could make the debate that using a gaming PC to combine your PC and gaming needs will even save you money.
As I said in a earlier post, price is not the issue of the console dominance. It comes down to being casual. People dont like to be considered hardcore gamers because they will be in the pool of being a nerd and most people dont want to be a nerd. Console gaming is considered cool and in style, PC gaming is considered for nerds.
East Carolina University, Computer Science BS, 2011
--------------------
Current game: DAOC
Games played and quit: L2, PlanetSide, RF Online, GuildWars, SWG, COH/COV, Vanguard, LOTRO, WoW, WW2 Online, FFXI, Auto-Assault, EVE Online, ShadowBane, RYL, Rappelz, Last Chaos, Myst Online, POTBS, EQ2, Warhammer Online, AoC, Aion, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Allods, Darkfall.
Waiting on: Earthrise
Names: Citio, Goldie, Sportacus
This is kind of a silly thread.
As someone said, computer gaming has always been somewhat more expensive than consoles on the onset. Plus, in the past with MMOs people used to play one MMO for years without changing that game.
People who are arguing video card cost as being the prohibitive factor are being someone dishonest. Stating that "For the same money, I could have a 360 and all these games for years" is actually going to cost you MORE in the long run.
The 'typical' console game is going to run you $50 EACH.
You will play that game and beat it (unless it's Oblivion) in ONE month. You know you will. And when you are done, you will never play that console game again, ever. Console games simply don't give you replay value on the whole because once the majority "beat the game", they stop playing it. You can't "beat" an mmo.
So you trade the game in to Ebay or Gamestop and get half what you paid for it or 3/4ths if you are lucky, and go spend another $50 bucks on something else.
Now you're out $25/month on a console game. But most console gamers don't have just "one" game.. they got 3 or 4 they play at a time.
Add all that up, then compare that to a $15/mo sub on a MMO that you play for several years and you come out about the same for that rig in one year's time.
Better even when you consider everything you can do on a computer that you can't do on a console system over the same amount of time.
So, build your own computer ($1,000 for a pretty good one), pick your MMO ($15/month) and play it until your hearts content > cheaper than one limited console and tons of rebuying games @ $50/shot.
If you can't afford to do both, that's life pretty much. It's called making a choice. You just have to budget your money better and figure out which is a priority for you; computer gaming OR console gaming.
Companies are now trying to make MMOs fit consoles but so far they are turning out things that end up crappy on both of them by doing it. Just be patient until a few years from now, then you'll have everything you want.. a mmo that plays great on a console.
"TO MICHAEL!"
That's a pretty decent rig for the money, but I wouldn't put a 430 watt PSU in anything.
The power demands are too great for a 430 watt PSU. It would be over taxed and short lived.
I would go with nothing less than 550 watt, and honestly I would recommend 600 watts in case you want to upgrade to a more power hungry GPU in the future.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
The system he picked would never draw 250 W from the power supply. A good quality 430 W power supply is plenty for that.
The problem is that he probably didn't pick a good quality 430 W power supply. The Antec EarthWatts and EarthWatts Green are decent enough, and the Seasonic S12II is quite nice, but that would stretch the budget. The rest of the 430 W power supplies on New Egg probably aren't very good. And yes, I'm including the Corsair CX430 and Antec Basiq in that analysis, not just the usual cheap junk brands. Though they're not complete garbage like the $17 (before shipping) Linkworld.
Don't focus too much on the nominal wattage. The question isn't what fake wattage number a manufacturer decided to put on the packaging. It's how much wattage the power supply can deliver well. And if a power supply could safely deliver 100 W more all day long than you'll draw from it under an artificial stress test, then it's got plenty of power for your needs.
Actually I have to agree with this, at least in my country.
Buying a PS3 is around 300-400€, but buying a PC that runs games recently launched is at least 800€, and it's not that good of a computer. I go to the stores and most of them don't sell desktops with more than 4GB Ram, what a fail. And they rarely give the info about helping us build our own desktop.
AND with laptops is even worst. My gf bought a good Hp laptop for 1000€ and 1 month ago, less than 3 years later, it got the graphics card burned, but it still worked. It just got completely broken this week, and she doesn't play games except Sims. What a waste. And it's rare to see a store that gives a person the opportunity to build their own desktop - completely the opposite of USA stores. Since we can't build them in parts, their prices are huge in order to force clients to buy not-so-good laptops. I have to congratulate Asus and packard bell, they sure give us better completed products with lower prices, but still...
So, for the sake of the money, buying a complete computer in order to be able to play recent games is expensive. If we want to buy to be a blast: 1500-2000€, and might have still 1-2 flaws. And almost never we have the opportunity to chose the components of the computer in stores. Without that, the customer don't have the certainty what is best in a computer to build it in parts, which means forcing the customer to buy a complete, expensive and not-so-good computer. And a lot of those expensive computer have intel graphics card, which is really bad for games but the employes still say they run all the games (that's how my parents were completely fooled).
I even have difficulty to find power supplies with more than 530W. Almost never I can find 600W.
And I hadn't included monitors and LCDs in the desktop price.... those are really expensive, almost the same or even more than the entire computer.
The only solution to have a good computer with a fair price, is building my own in a computer store that's hiding in some street that nobody goes, or buy on the internet (which can't be reliable all times). Usually those stores have the best things, but to find "that" store with the best components for all parts of the computer is really hard.
The problem is ALL these games are Winxp 32 bit games and people are buying 64 bit systems.The Cpu's are actually garbage multi core,basically 2-4 crap chips they are selling us old crap and combining the mmake it seem a whoel lot better.Ya on statistical programs that can measure stuff like that,but in reality gaming,these systems usually do not perform well at all.
It will probably be when devs atart making 64 bit ONLY games,that we will start too see huge improvements,code matching the system and multi cores UTILIZED,not just recognized.
What is happening is these cheaply coded 32 bit games are bottlenecked,so the easy way out is tons more Ram,which so happens is a slower part of your system.
Perhaps it will all come together in another 20 years lol.,Maybe there is some samrt people somewhere building a new more efficient Windows system,using better API's.John Carmack made the great Quake series using OpenGl,at the time ,it seemed the way to go,but now a days seems less supported,Microsoft owns us all,and rents us out to Nvidia and ATI.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Coincidently, I just started looking at the emulators available for PCs because I cannot find modern games that I enjoy and the options are good and the games still impressive.
Think there's more utility in PCs that makes them better value and more flexibility and not stuck with the dictates of the console manufacters and their redundancy schedule for the console. Perhaps if you house-share and divide the cost of the console by everyone that is good value Eg stream music/movies and play games.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Personally I am willing to pay for the versatility of a Computer over a Console. I don't use my Computer for just gaming which is about all a console is good for. I also use it for internet, e-mail, word processing, spread sheets, picture viewing and editting, video viewing and editting, video conferencing, and more. A console can do some of that, but does not have the power and versatility to do ALL of that. Plus, if something breaks on my computer, I can fix/replace it normally pretty easily but with a console, you may as well buy a new one.
Plainly put, console are good for gaming and that is about all, computers are good for everything else.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I can build a gaming PC with more than enough RAM(DDR3 4-6GB), more than enough CPU power and a GREAT graphics card such as rthe GTX 460 for $600. You can pretty much max any game with that card as I have it in my current PC and everything plays smoothly on and I play a ton of games.
It is not $1,000 for a PC nowadays.
I'd rather pay $600 and be able to do all you can do on a PC in addition to playing games at over 60 FPS in HD resolutions.
I also have a 360, but the games are more expensive, the games do not look near as good either.
GAME TIL YOU DIE!!!!
Why should I have to figure in the cost of my entire computer when the entire computer isn't used for gaming?
When then should you be able to exclude the cost of your television?
I have an idea, let's play your little game here, for a moment. I'll factor in the cost of my entire PC, but since we're no longer talking about just gaming gear here, but rather my entire computer, I'll list all the things my PC does that your PS3 doesn't.
-My PC is a programming platform. In particular, I have software for programming in C++ and Python. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC is a high end photo and video editor. Your PS3 doesn't do that (and even if you tried, it wouldn't even have enough ram to physically load a photo or video to edit).
-My PC runs a printer and scanner that I frequently use. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC runs skype, a common standard for quick text or voice communication with others, as well as Google Talk, to allow me to peruse my email inbox without having to open a browser. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC acts as a remote shooting device for my camera, not only allowing for remote control over a USB cable, but for me to access live view on my PC screen. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC can open and edit office documents in either MS or Openoffice formats. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC runs my choice of torrent software. Your PS3 doesn't do that.
-My PC can use an array of dozens of internet browsers, and supports the absolute latest versions of all internet standards. Your PS3 doesn't do that. In fact your PS3 doesn't even have Silverlight support.
-My PC offers a vast array of storage for me to work with (and even my 1TB is piddling compared to what's easily and cheaply obtained). At the $300 price point, your PS3 offers you only one fiftieth of that. My PC has a quad core 3.8ghz CPU (that's midly overclocked), 4GB of RAM, and $300 GPUs. Your PS3 has a single PPC core for its CPU supported by a small number of very limited supplemental processing units, a palty 256mb of ram, and a $30 GPU.
If we're going to only talk about the gaming capabilities of my PC, then I'm only going to count the $300 I spent adding those capabilities to this machine. If you want to factor in the cost of my entire PC, then fine, I will also factor in the capabilities of my entire PC, and NOT just its gaming capabilities (because that's what $1000 bought me, the full range of capabilities, and not just the ability to play games).
So yes, your PS3 only cost you $300, congratulations. In exchange for that sum you got a $300 computer with the limitations of a $300 computer. I paid $1000 for mine, and it bought me a far more functional computer that not only does everything the PS3 does better, but does many things the PS3 flat out doesn't do, and can't do. Thank you for making my point for me.
You're right, I bet the "open-minded" people here, namely those who aren't you, will clearly the differences here. Consoles have their place, but PCs are superior, plain and simple, and it's what you get in exchange for their higher costs.
Just 2 questions: what is the minimum wage per week or month in USA? and what is the average salary?
Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour here.
As for average salary, that depends on what kind of average you want. The mean salary is quite high, but the median salary is much, much lower because a large portion of our nation's income is concentrated at the very top with the wealthiest people.
Thank you. I was asking for the median, but only answering the first question is enough for me.
I don't know what are the costs and taxes in your country, but I will only consider the minimal wage and computer prices in your country with mine.
Let's see, how much would cost, for ex, this computer:
PC Desktop CPU Intel® Core™ i7-870 - 2,93GHz / 6GB DDR3 / 1TB / 7 HP / DVD-RW DL LightScribe / NVIDIA® GeForce GT420 2GB
?
EDIT: AKA "HP Pavilion Elite HPE-410t" (this deskopt is one of the new best computers sellng right now in my country).
EDIT2: I searched and found out that it's around $1,091.98 (825,71€). And you have a 1 month minimum wage of $1160 (8hours/day, 5 days/week, no taxes included). At least 1 month = 1 desktop
In my country, Portugal, it costs 1149€ ($1.519,53), with a minimum wage of 475€ ($628,18) per month (8hours/day, 5 days/week, no taxes included and it may increase to 500€). At least 3 months = 1 desktop.
See the difference? Even If we had only USA computer prices or only USA min. wages, it would be 2 months = 1 desktop.
Geez, I want to buy a computer in USA and bring it here in my bag tax free
I dont care what your computer does. Do you think your the only person that has a computer capable of doing these things? You need to use that printer your so proud of and make a copy of your 'great computer post' so that when (insert newest game on market here) comes out and you cant play it because you need a new video card and you feel like complaining about it, you cant just scan it with that awsome printer and copy it onto the forum.
You have to upgrade pc's to continue playing pc games. You dont have to upgrade consoles. I dont have to upgrade my computer to surf the internet or use my printer and scanner.
To play that newest game you need that newest video card and the newest video cards are very high. They go down in price later when better cards come out but by then you'll need the better card that just came out, and on an on. That card is only going to last you around 2 years.
I wonder if you even read the opening post and know what this thread is about. You dont have to get your feelings hurt by my saying that a tv shouldn't get added to the cost of a console gaming machine for a way to justify prices. Thats really reaching.
Only your last sentence was even relative to the op. Funny that your last sentence was a complete reversal of everything you've been saying so far and you finally admitted that pc's are a "higher cost". Of coarse a pc running a game at high settings looks better than a console...cost is whats being talked about.
This thread seems stupid to me. I built up my pc for ~500$ or less 4-5 years ago. It can run almost any MMORPG/single-player game which comes out. Some ofcourse not on best graphics, but medium it is all. Only people who needs to upgrade often is graphic whores. Medium graphics are pretty good, you only need better if running on real high def monitor. Like 50cm or more. Also I have 7 years old laptop and it still runs most of MMO.
And talking about prices... You can build comp for 200$ or less nowdays and it will run mostly everything, ofc not on best graphics but not worst as well. What costs most in PC is video card. 8600 Nvidia is enough for any MMO and costs 150$ or so. You can use even 6XXX series which costs like what? 50$?
Running on 2gb of rams myself and havent encountered problems with it. 2gbs is what? 20$?
So my thoughts is that if you are not graphic whore/stupid you can buy PC cheaper then console and enjoy games on quite good graphics...
EDIT:
People who uses PC usually forget to wipe/reinstall their OS every few months or so. Ofcourse if you dont clear you PC often it clogs up with shit and runs slower and slower. Also people forget to upgrade drivers and other software. If you do those things PC can last up to 10 years easily. That is sort of downside for casual user compared to console as console requires no maintanence...
EDIT2:
People talk about new video cards, but realy, how many games uses them? Maybe few new shooters, if you are uber fan of shooters you might think about new cards. But all RPG, Strategy, Adventure doesnt even use up capabilites of 8600 or older video cards. Dont know which cards series of Nvidia started having px shader 3.0, but that one is enough...
Final EDIT (lol):
My 4-5years old pc worth 500$ at time I bought can play most games these days on good settings, to name few so you wont say i dont give example: SC2, ME2, Darkfall, Fallout 3, Civ 5, Dragon Age, HP (just tried, fucking shooter but ran on good graph), Divinity 2, SWTFU2 high graph.
So yea, it has been 5 years and I still have to encounter game which wouldnt be shooter and I couldnt play on good graphics...
I would like to take this opportunity to laugh at what a ridiculous video card that is. 2 GB of video memory for a card based on the bottom chip in Nvidia's modern lineup, and with essentially half of the chip disabled, no less. For settings at which 512 MB isn't enough, the GPU wouldn't be powerful enough with 2 GB, either.
There's the thing that keeps getting overlooked. You DO NOT need to keep upgrading your PC. You just want to because you can keep getting better graphics every upgrade. An Xbox 360's graphics look marginally better than they did at release only due to programming expertise that has come with time, but overall the graphics have not really increased.
You can KEEP the same PC you've been using for 5 years just like you've been using your Xbox 360 for 5 years. The graphics level you can attain on either system will simply be about the same as it was 5 years ago. On a PC you just have to turn down the settings till they look like they're 5 years old. On the Xbox 360 every game you put in will automatically look like it's about 5 years old.
You just *see* the option to turn up the graphics on the PC.. which you cannot do on a console.. and feel that you should upgrade to take advantage of it. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO THIS. On a new game just turn the graphics down, plug it into a TV and sit 6 feet away it'll look exactly like a console, or play it on your monitor and it will look exactly like it did 5 years ago instead of having new quality shadows and bump mapping and lighting effects we couldn't have back then.
The thread title was "Computer gaming market pulled-back by video cards market? Prices a rip-off?" but when u actually bother to read the OP and following posts the questions asked arent limited to that.
Here let me give you some citations from OP:
"Consoles sell for around 300$ right now. They have a processor, graphics card, web browser, wi-fi." and "Now when it comes to computers, you can barely run Black Ops in high settings with a 3-4 years old graphics card, and computer." is a direct comparison between two different platforms and isnt a pure speculation of PC hardware prices... been allready covered .. move on
"The OS doesn't justify the hardware price." u get what u pay for that has allready been said and the fact that your circling around the claim that u cannot play latest games with 300$ PC is stupid because it seems you are expecting PC to give more GFX and perfomance for the same money ... most new games can be tweaked to run on older PC with similar GFX compared to consoles = move on
"What if you COULD use a mouse and keyboard on a PS3, and BROWSE your files?" yet another question that puts the situation into direct PC vs Console comparison ergo not a pure speculation of prices.
"I seriously don't see how you could do a Fortress Raid on Aion with that system... Or do a raid in WOW with this machine without simply watching your computer go like "chunk chunk chunk"." another example of expecting more with less/same cost ... Aion and WoW for consoles c'mon
If anything ... i view consoles as the main reason why technological advances are slowing down in the PC market .. its like if people would have been perfectly happy with horses we wouldnt have cars now would we ?
I do see a big problem dealing with ppl that ask a question to get an answer to ask another question when most of the stuff ur repeating in page 8-10 of this thread have been covered at page 1 & 2
I like consoles .. the problem is theres only really one console on market .. the Wii , others are just mini-PC's that have a marketing agenda to prove their "superior" GFX , sounds , storage capability and utility ( woohoo i can browse net and watch bluray )wich are proved to be false claims by numerous posters smarter than you and me combined.
And yes stating your opinion is a direct attack but calling others "PC only Fanboys" isnt ?
Double standards FTW