Proof that PC gaming is Cheaper than Staying with your Console

[Fon]

The title is saying that pc gaming is cheaper. Really nothing about performance

My first sentence is a reply to the title since there is no actual proof that one is cheaper then the other. It all depends on the gamer themselves. The paragraph from my post is just my own view of things.

[Xelios]

And you'll be paying for the performance that you'll never get.


I donno about you guys but if I wanna buy a PCIE 3.0 video card, I would want the full benefits.

Though my issue was with the amount of sockets. Which is fine and I probably did make a poor decision (since I had an SLI back in 2005 and I never used it so I thought I wouldn't need it next time) but that's an issue with PC gaming, you're always making choices and can make the wrong ones.

What I'll be happy about next-gen of consoles is that once they come out, whatever games that will be on it, will be made to fit them perfectly so I never have to feel duped because I'm paying less to get less but at least I'm getting the full benefit.

With PC, it's sort of like a gamble. For the most part, it's not that bad of a gamble that you feel unsatisfied but once I realized that it's sort of like a race where you'll always end up on the wrong side in the end, I figured I'd just use it for use other than gaming.

Now if somehow they make it to where you can easily upgrade your PC without hassle, I'd probably give it some attention again.

According to benchmarks, the difference between 3.0 and 2.0 is pretty much negligable. Less than a frame usually. Can't say I'll be missing out on anything that I paid for.

[*goo]

Just to be controversial.

Console hardware can't be upgraded but it's woefully outdated very quickly and each platform specifically holds you there until they're ready to give you something new. No flexibility whatsoever.

I enjoy the PS3/X360 but there's no getting away from the fact they're both 5+ years old with their only plus point in this area being developers still want to code for their extinct hardware.

Why are developers crying out for bleeding edge hardware next generation? Do you think they'll get it? Consoles are essentially budget gaming - heavily controlled hardware costs so I'm going to speculate no, they won't.

Games often look good but never great. This can normally only be tested when there's a comparison (PC version) of course. There's a reason multi-platform comparison gamers leave out the PC version.

We talk about upgrading a PC like its a bad thing. It isn't. It's preference in build, outlay, purpose and flexibility.

I enjoy running my games on PS3 at the equivalent of low to medium. My PC is all about the high. Do I outlay more up front? Yeah, I do. But I get much more in return. And I do save lots of money on the games - I've paid a fraction of the cost of my 150+ game Steam library than I have for PS3, for example.

Let's not forget that console games only exist because of the PC built to develop them. Also that advances in PC technology often pave the way for console hardware so the flexibility of PC hardware development is something positive, not negative.




Obligatory TapaTalk signature.

[keefy]

lane count is the x1 x2 x4 x8 x16 ad so on and most board within the last 5 years usually have one x16 lane.
My old X850XT takes up 2 slots of space but the board only had 1 physical AGP slot this meant I lost 1 of my PCI slots so instead of 3 PCI I only ha d 2 PCI that could be used.

I used a PCIe2.0 card in a 1.0 board for about 18 months with no problems.

As I said PC is about customisation you can have the latest and greatest 60 or 120FPS at 1920x1080 or 5760x1080 (3 monitors wide) if you are willing to spend over £/$1000 on graphics cards alone or you can budget game on £/$600 computer at 30-60FPS if using medium graphics.

[BoyBettaKnow]

That seems to be the things lost on most people. The customisation of the PC is all down to the user.

You want to have the games at the standard of a console (720p @ 30FPS) go buy a cheap as shit computer and that'll be easy to do

If you want to experience what being a PC gamer is all about and playing games at a proper HD resolution, 120+ FPS and with all the eye-candy then yeah you need to pay that premium but your getting so much more for your money.

The ignorance about PC gaming never ceases to amaze me


BBK. Tapatalking.

[Fenix]

Only part that makes PC cheaper is all the steam sales. I got 100+ games on steam, and most I paid for one was $13.60 - everything else was $1.49 - $7.49

Disagree with this, infact in the last three years I spent more on my pc - including the fact I need to buy new ram and motherboard - then two+ PS3s. lol

[keefy]

its not just steam, generally PC games are always about £10 cheaper when new becuase the publisher does not have to pay a licensing fee.

[Dennis Dyack]

I will never game on a PC again. I enjoy my consoles too much to ever go back to the PC. I have no problem spending team extra money on consoles.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Sufi]

According to benchmarks, the difference between 3.0 and 2.0 is pretty much negligable. Less than a frame usually. Can't say I'll be missing out on anything that I paid for.

That's how it always is in the beginning and the advantage is eventually utilized. It was the same with 3Gb/s (SATAII) drives and DDR3 RAM etc. Once they come out with hardware that utilizes 3.0, it will be far better.

[claud3]

Its a case of, you like P.C gaming go for it. If you like Console gaming go for it

And if you like up grading your P.c for the latest games and by all means. Either way you are gaming your own

[keefy]

When PCIe 2.0 is saturated thats when we upgrade, but to upgrade my board just because I bought a PCIe3 card that doesnt saturate pcie 2.0 yet is a bit silly especially if I bought that system 2 or more years ago.