Vista only, and from what I hear it still doesn't work very well.
I believe there are people working on getting the game to run in XP, but that'll be a while. And apparently, the port still sucks even if you get it running.
Well, I'm probably getting a 360 eventually anyway, so it's not a huge deal for me anymore.
But yeah, it's kinda rediculous they can't even port a game properly from one of their own systems to another of their own systems.
And it was an idiotic attempt to make people switch to Vista. "OMG, please use our new and probably bug ridden OS. We promise to let you play a 3 year old badly ported console shooter that's at most good compared to what else is available on the PC if you do!!!".
Other then the optimization, what in hell would be the difference between PC BioShock and 360 BioShock? I'm curious.
It usually comes down to "This version looks better" and "This version plays better with <k/b & mouse or gamepad>". That's about it.
UI is a big issue. Check Oblivion for how to do it wrong. They actually had a whole presentation at e3 just on the PC version of Bioshocks interface.
Optimisation is also incredibly important. While I am against calling the PC version a port because that implies lack of quality and a rush job, it isnt, the factthat it was developed primarily for 360 means making sure it runs well on all PCs and scales well. Some games dont.
Other than that, the 360 version will have achievements, the PC version may also. The PC version can also have support for mods, mod tools and all that jazz. That is incredibly important for modern PC games, especially FPSs.
While Bioshock has no multiplayer, the difference in MP also varies a lot between console and PC.
Graphics is also a big issue. Not because the PC one will look better but because you want the same quality of visuals but also running on a decent spread of hardware.
Other then the optimization, what in hell would be the difference between PC BioShock and 360 BioShock? I'm curious.
It usually comes down to "This version looks better" and "This version plays better with <k/b & mouse or gamepad>". That's about it.
UI is a big issue. Check Oblivion for how to do it wrong. They actually had a whole presentation at e3 just on the PC version of Bioshocks interface.
Optimisation is also incredibly important. While I am against calling the PC version a port because that implies lack of quality and a rush job, it isnt, the factthat it was developed primarily for 360 means making sure it runs well on all PCs and scales well. Some games dont.
Other than that, the 360 version will have achievements, the PC version may also. The PC version can also have support for mods, mod tools and all that jazz. That is incredibly important for modern PC games, especially FPSs.
While Bioshock has no multiplayer, the difference in MP also varies a lot between console and PC.
Graphics is also a big issue. Not because the PC one will look better but because you want the same quality of visuals but also running on a decent spread of hardware.
There are a lot of differences.
Hmm, never thought about UI. What's so bad about the Oblivion UI on PC?
And since I'd rank mods and such as far more important then achievements, I guess it does just come down to visuals and optimization.
Other then the optimization, what in hell would be the difference between PC BioShock and 360 BioShock? I'm curious.
It usually comes down to "This version looks better" and "This version plays better with <k/b & mouse or gamepad>". That's about it.
UI is a big issue. Check Oblivion for how to do it wrong. They actually had a whole presentation at e3 just on the PC version of Bioshocks interface.
Optimisation is also incredibly important. While I am against calling the PC version a port because that implies lack of quality and a rush job, it isnt, the factthat it was developed primarily for 360 means making sure it runs well on all PCs and scales well. Some games dont.
Other than that, the 360 version will have achievements, the PC version may also. The PC version can also have support for mods, mod tools and all that jazz. That is incredibly important for modern PC games, especially FPSs.
While Bioshock has no multiplayer, the difference in MP also varies a lot between console and PC.
Graphics is also a big issue. Not because the PC one will look better but because you want the same quality of visuals but also running on a decent spread of hardware.
There are a lot of differences.
Hmm, never thought about UI. What's so bad about the Oblivion UI on PC?
And since I'd rank mods and such as far more important then achievements, I guess it does just come down to visuals and optimization.
It's enormous and clunky, since it was designed to be controlled by an analog stick rather than a mouse. It was absolute garbage on the PC (and was quickly modded, thank god).
Other then the optimization, what in hell would be the difference between PC BioShock and 360 BioShock? I'm curious.
It usually comes down to "This version looks better" and "This version plays better with <k/b & mouse or gamepad>". That's about it.
UI is a big issue. Check Oblivion for how to do it wrong. They actually had a whole presentation at e3 just on the PC version of Bioshocks interface.
Optimisation is also incredibly important. While I am against calling the PC version a port because that implies lack of quality and a rush job, it isnt, the factthat it was developed primarily for 360 means making sure it runs well on all PCs and scales well. Some games dont.
Other than that, the 360 version will have achievements, the PC version may also. The PC version can also have support for mods, mod tools and all that jazz. That is incredibly important for modern PC games, especially FPSs.
While Bioshock has no multiplayer, the difference in MP also varies a lot between console and PC.
Graphics is also a big issue. Not because the PC one will look better but because you want the same quality of visuals but also running on a decent spread of hardware.
There are a lot of differences.
Hmm, never thought about UI. What's so bad about the Oblivion UI on PC?
And since I'd rank mods and such as far more important then achievements, I guess it does just come down to visuals and optimization.
It's enormous and clunky, since it was designed to be controlled by an analog stick rather than a mouse. It was absolute garbage on the PC (and was quickly modded, thank god).
God bless the internets.
See Resident Evil 4 for how to do a bad PC UI.
(last time I checked there was no mouse support in the game. Nor any way to quit the game (alt f4 was the only way))
I've read strong arguments for both sides, but for me, the pendulum has swung back to the 360. Nonetheless, I'm going to take the advice to wait and see. I'm still wary about the 360, but who knows what will happen in a month or two - price drop, 65nm chips, or more horror stories?
The main reason I'm favoring the 360 for now: it seems that the cost to upgrade (from scratch) from home theater PC to gaming PC is more than the cost of a 360 after all. However, after a decade since I bought my last desktop (as I've said, I've been a laptop guy), shopping for a new PC is simply overwhelming. Can anyone recommend min specs for an HTPC, or a vendor that won't demand I use the most up-to-date components (and therefore the most expensive ones)? (And might this warrant a new thread?)
Yet more rediculous hyperbole. As long as your not trying to run in 10k x 12k resolution or something insane of that sort, your PC will run games fine for a LONG time.
Bullshit. I got a gaming PC about three years ago. Athlon 64 3200+, Radeon 9700 Pro, a gigabyte of RAM.
Oblivion was the first game that was outright unplayable. Then I got X3. Slideshow. GRAW? Notta chance, good thing I got it for $5 from Goodwill. SupCom? Only on the lowest possible settings, and then it looks worse than TA Spring.
For a console, after a few years, the games start to get more optimized. Compare a launch PS2 title, say, Oni, to a brand-new one, say, FFXII. After a few years with a PC, the games get less optimized. Inexcusable.
dude 9700 pro? that card competed with geforce4, it is almost 5 years old now.
That card competed with the GeForce FX, not the 4. ATi's competition to the GF4 was the Radeon 8000 series.
not so much, 9800 was more against the geforce FX. Anyway, your card is extremely old, so I don't know why you expect it to run the following games you listed all that well.
It honestly depends on how well they make the game. I can play Half-Life 2 on a crappy Athlon XP 2400+ laptop, smooth as butter. Oblivion is ridiculously unoptimized, although you might want to try Oldblivion.
I'm in the same boat as you, OP. The thing that tipped my hand to buy a 360 is the fact that there is a measure of comfort to having a box that is going to play every single 360 game for years to come. Rather than buying a PC then in two years be like "Well, fuck, I can't run that."
My PC that I bought more than 2 years ago hasn't done this yet. They don't magically break after 2 years. You just have to start lowering the resolution.
I'm in the same boat as you, OP. The thing that tipped my hand to buy a 360 is the fact that there is a measure of comfort to having a box that is going to play every single 360 game for years to come. Rather than buying a PC then in two years be like "Well, fuck, I can't run that."
My PC that I bought more than 2 years ago hasn't done this yet. They don't magically break after 2 years. You just have to start lowering the resolution.
The point is though that on a 360 or any console you dont have to lower the resolution. you know that any game you buy ever for that console will run at its fullest potential and will look exactly like trailers/screens/demos etc. With PC gaming what you see isnt always what you get.
I know it isnt a major issue, and really if you have a half decent PC you might never notice, but it is a case to buy a console. Especially with a lot of games going on both 360 and PC sometimes it is just easier and cheaper to get the console version and run it rock solid when you might have issues/patches/performance issues on a PC.
However, with Vista and the Games for Windows thing, MS is trying to standardise PC gaming, which is kinda good thing. Basically, some people just prefer the kind of no nonsense approach console gaming has. Buy it - stick it in the console - play it.
I'm in the same boat as you, OP. The thing that tipped my hand to buy a 360 is the fact that there is a measure of comfort to having a box that is going to play every single 360 game for years to come. Rather than buying a PC then in two years be like "Well, fuck, I can't run that."
My PC that I bought more than 2 years ago hasn't done this yet. They don't magically break after 2 years. You just have to start lowering the resolution.
The point is though that on a 360 or any console you dont have to lower the resolution. you know that any game you buy ever for that console will run at its fullest potential and will look exactly like trailers/screens/demos etc. With PC gaming what you see isnt always what you get.
The 360 will be cheaper and Bioshock will look considerably better on it than on a "bare-bones PC." You also don't have to deal with the rapid pace of hardware upgrades that are required to keep your PC in the "bare-bones" category for the next generation of PC games (that come out every 6 months and make your new PC look like a joke).
Well, if I decide against a 360, I would instead spend that cash to bolster what would have been a bare-bones PC. What's the marginal cost on such an upgrade, these days? And would BioShock, or any other game, still look better on the 360?
~$575 on top of the 'bare-bones PC.' This includes everything except the monitor. I talked about this with my friend earlier and we figured that's the rough price if you get most of your parts from NewEgg and put it together yourself.
The point is though that on a 360 or any console you dont have to lower the resolution.
You don't, because the game comes with the video quality settings already lowered for you! On the mean old PC however you have to move those sliders yourself...
The point is though that on a 360 or any console you dont have to lower the resolution.
You don't, because the game comes with the video quality settings already lowered for you! On the mean old PC however you have to move those sliders yourself...
Well yeah, but the point is that when a new game comes out you can and will play it at a decent quality. There is no guarantee it will play to the same quality on a PC.
Im not being weird here, I own a ridiculously top end PC and an xbox 360. Ill probably be buying PC Bioshock just cause it will be cheaper and I have to save every penny this fall.
But if, say, I had kept my old PC (roughly an ati radeon x800pro level system, bout 4-5 years old) then sure it could have played Half Life 2 decent at launch. But it sure as fuck couldnt play Oblivion without turning EVERYTHING waaay down. The xbox 360 can, however, play both of those games at a high quality and decent framerate.
Its really a case of stability. Sure PC games ostensibly look better overall, visually, but you are always playing a game of balance to get the best visuals and the best framerate by tweaking the settings, upgrading drivers etc. Some people, a lot of people, just want the ease of mind of having the ability to put the disc in and play the game. No install, no messing around tweaking it and calibrating etc. That does count for a lot.
Will Bioshock on 360 have DX9 or DX10 level graphics? I'm buying it on PC, I have a very good system, far better than a 360, but I don't have DX10 yet.
But if, say, I had kept my old PC (roughly an ati radeon x800pro level system, bout 4-5 years old) then sure it could have played Half Life 2 decent at launch. But it sure as fuck couldnt play Oblivion without turning EVERYTHING waaay down. The xbox 360 can, however, play both of those games at a high quality and decent framerate.
There's nothing high quality about Oblivion on the 360, I'm afraid. ;-)
[edit] Also, why are you comparing the 360 to a computer that's older than the console itself? Can you play Oblivion on the original Xbox?
SPARTAAAAA.
Will Bioshock on 360 have DX9 or DX10 level graphics? I'm buying it on PC, I have a very good system, far better than a 360, but I don't have DX10 yet.
DX10 is fairly unplayable on any system at the moment, especially considering the improvements are rarely noticable. And the 360 is a dx9 machine, so basically yeah... it'll look just as good on a 360.
Will Bioshock on 360 have DX9 or DX10 level graphics? I'm buying it on PC, I have a very good system, far better than a 360, but I don't have DX10 yet.
DX10 is fairly unplayable on any system at the moment, especially considering the improvements are rarely noticable. And the 360 is a dx9 machine, so basically yeah... it'll look just as good on a 360.
Ok, cool. I was watching some videos of all the cool water effects and awesome lighting, and was worried that might be DX10 exclusive. But now I guess it's not.
Urian on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Apparently, there are some DX10-specific effects in Bioshock if your hardware is up to it.
We are supporting a number of new features for DX10. Most significantly, DX10 will allow any physical object that comes in contact with a body of water to produce interactive waves that will perturb the surface of the water itself, distorting its refraction and reflection, and blending seamlessly with the simulations already running on the surface. AIs moving in water will leave behind rippling, foaming trails. Bullets and objects that hit water will produce radial ripples. In DX10, for fire and some other effects, we'll be using soft particles which means that the fire particles will no longer "clip" or be cut off by hard surfaces that they intersect with. And finally, under DX10, shadows will be crisper and more precisely match the features of the objects they are cast from.
Doesn't sound too terribly better in all honesty, but might could be a nice bonus for those with DX10 hardware and Vista. Assuming, of course, the framerate doesn't completely tank (hello Company of Heroes).
The 360 will be cheaper and Bioshock will look considerably better on it than on a "bare-bones PC." You also don't have to deal with the rapid pace of hardware upgrades that are required to keep your PC in the "bare-bones" category for the next generation of PC games (that come out every 6 months and make your new PC look like a joke).
Well, if I decide against a 360, I would instead spend that cash to bolster what would have been a bare-bones PC. What's the marginal cost on such an upgrade, these days? And would BioShock, or any other game, still look better on the 360?
~$575 on top of the 'bare-bones PC.' This includes everything except the monitor. I talked about this with my friend earlier and we figured that's the rough price if you get most of your parts from NewEgg and put it together yourself.
Dunno what kind of parts you're throwing in there to get that price.
I built my entire computer, barring KBM/Monitor/Speakers for ~$650. X1950pro for 135, 2 gigs of ram for $80 dollars, Athlon X2 4600+ for $125, and Abit KN9 for $75. I've seen ram down to $60 dollars now, the X1950 pro varies around, and the 4600+ is like $109 now. You shouldn't need to spend more than $400 dollars to upgrade to a very capable system.
I used to really enjoy the flexibility of PC gaming, mods etc...
But I really prefer just having a plug and play option in my 360. I dont need to worry about specs, I dont have any of the niggles that you can sometimes get with a PC - driver issues, things needing "tweaking" etc. I like the whole, plug it in and away you go thing.
I switched all my gaming to consoles and havent looked back. Especially for a "lounge/media center" setup - 360 all the way.
As an aside - I should come clean and say that I have a cheap mac mini I got off of ebay as a movie player... I've never looked into streaming avi's on a 360 - but I hear it can be done.
If you can afford an awesome PC setup, which can be a LOT of money, PC gaming is amazing. But it isn't really financially practical for some people when you look at a 360.
Urian on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
I just plopped $1200 down on a laptop. It's going to fulfill my Civ4, SC2, and CSS gaming needs quite nicely (At least I hope it will for SC2, I have faith Blizz won't make it a system hog).
I would be just fine jamming out on a 360 with mouse/kb controls for FPS games and the controller for everything else. However, I'm not sure a mouse/kb combo will be even considered for a standard anytime soon.
I was a dyed-in-the-wool PC gamer for like 7 years. I bought the corresponding consoles from the three generations that happened to occur while I was PC gaming, but I never really devoted any serious amount of time or money to them.
But, when it finally came time to upgrade my PC again recently, I realized the jump from AGP to PCI-E was going to really set me back. Usually I just did the motherboard/ram/cpu and did the videocard as a seperate thing ( birthday money or seperate cash hoarding), but that wouldn't work this time without a 6 month layover or so.
So, I took a long hard look at the PC exclusive gaming horizon, and frankly for the first time pretty much ever I was severely underwhelmed. RTSs will remain a strong PC gaming bastion, but Starcraft 2, the upcoming genre standard, has very modest requirements. So the only thing besides that is MMO's, which are never resource intensive (or terribly interesting these days , and a few are slated for the 360 soon like Age of Conan ), and FPSs...
Consoles now do FPS's extremely well, but the mouse and keyboard is probably always going to be superior to the gamepad in terms of control, and FPS's are usually where the graphics get pushed to the bleeding edge on PC's -- so if you're a heavy FPS guy, a PC may still make sense. The only thing is, I don't see a whole lot of those kinds of games on the horizon anymore, as I think developers are cluing in to the rampant piracy, video-card upgrade fatigue, and cheap console competition that is slowly whittling away the hardcore PC gamer market.
Unless you want to play UT2k7 with the best graphics you can get and the true M&KB experience, or Crysis, or are a devoted RTS fan, then I would definitely aim towards a console. PC gaming exclusives are dieing as production budgets escalate and publishers need the largest consumer base possible to justify the insane and spiraling costs, and games more and more seem to be ported to the PC after being designed with consoles in mind, often as a relative afterthought with issues and bugs abound. In fact, for the price of a great PC gaming machine from scratch, you could probably squeeze out an HDTV and a 360 in one purchase.
I'm really just noticing how dire the PC gaming landscape has become, compared to like 1998-2003. End of an era?
People always get pissed off at me when I say that I prefer playing FPSes on consoles now. I used to be a huge Quake and Unreal tourney whore, clocking well over a thousand hours between them over the years. But then I kind of tired of it after playing Halo-- everything just felt better to me when I did it on the console. The huge bass from my friends' subwoofer, the rumble when I shot. It kind of ruined PC FPSes for me. Now I when I play PC FPSes, it no longer feels natural to me. So sue me.
Well, my post/comment was pretty much directed at bigger budget, mainstream titles -- that post is kind of decieving. Especially in the late 90's you could probably make a list that long of full length, well reviewed PC titles from established dev houses that would actually sell well. That list in that post is pretty padded with small little indy games that will most likely be panned or passed over, either due to a deficit in quality (which is a common occurance on such lists) or a lack of press.
The games more within the scope of my post/comment are the higher profile ones; the vast majority of which ended up under the heading multi-platform in that particular thread. With development becoming increasingly console centric in attempts to garner the largest consumer base, those games will most likely be superior on consoles -- but the hottest looking games for PC never used to be sloppy seconds from consoles. RTS's make up the strongest PC lineup, but I acknowledged that would be the case, simply because of interface limitations.
So yeah, I still stand by my comment. PC gaming isn't dead, but it's a shadow of it's former self .
That and with Halo 3, Assassin's Creed and Resident Evil 5 not coming soon to the PC (if at all, they should, but dunno for sure)...makes that part more difficult hehe
Assassin's creed is coming out the same time to 360/PS3/PC. Halo 3 will undoubtably come out for the PC 2-3 years later and poorly optimized. Depending on if Capcom learned it's lession, there are even odds of RE5 coming to PCs eventually too.
Pretty much every noteworthy FPS and RPG which come out for the xbox eventually find their way to the PC, though not alway's in a form which is optimized to the point of being playable. Other genre's, like rock band, not so much.
I did say not coming soon to the PC, not that it wont be coming. Both Halo 1 and 2 came out 2 years and 2.5 years respectively after the console version. Resident Evil 4 came out over a year. I had not heard about a PC version of Assassin's Creed, so if it does come out simultaneously, then that's great. I can use my Xbox controller to play for I did not enjoy the controls of Warrior Within (game judgement aside), with keyboard + mouse. Again, something that's nice about PC as long as the devs give support those options.
Posts
Fucking Vista.
What, it doesn't work on Vista, or its Vista only?
Oh lawd. It runs on the same engine as the first Halo, kind of blatant attempt at selling copies of Vista.
I believe there are people working on getting the game to run in XP, but that'll be a while. And apparently, the port still sucks even if you get it running.
I'm not a Halo fan, but still, I'd buy it cheap if it would run.
But yeah, it's kinda rediculous they can't even port a game properly from one of their own systems to another of their own systems.
And it was an idiotic attempt to make people switch to Vista. "OMG, please use our new and probably bug ridden OS. We promise to let you play a 3 year old badly ported console shooter that's at most good compared to what else is available on the PC if you do!!!".
Impostor.
UI is a big issue. Check Oblivion for how to do it wrong. They actually had a whole presentation at e3 just on the PC version of Bioshocks interface.
Optimisation is also incredibly important. While I am against calling the PC version a port because that implies lack of quality and a rush job, it isnt, the factthat it was developed primarily for 360 means making sure it runs well on all PCs and scales well. Some games dont.
Other than that, the 360 version will have achievements, the PC version may also. The PC version can also have support for mods, mod tools and all that jazz. That is incredibly important for modern PC games, especially FPSs.
While Bioshock has no multiplayer, the difference in MP also varies a lot between console and PC.
Graphics is also a big issue. Not because the PC one will look better but because you want the same quality of visuals but also running on a decent spread of hardware.
There are a lot of differences.
The hell you are. There can be only one!
<Queen begins playing in background>
Hmm, never thought about UI. What's so bad about the Oblivion UI on PC?
And since I'd rank mods and such as far more important then achievements, I guess it does just come down to visuals and optimization.
It's enormous and clunky, since it was designed to be controlled by an analog stick rather than a mouse. It was absolute garbage on the PC (and was quickly modded, thank god).
(last time I checked there was no mouse support in the game. Nor any way to quit the game (alt f4 was the only way))
God bless the internets.
Now that's just fucking hilarious.
The main reason I'm favoring the 360 for now: it seems that the cost to upgrade (from scratch) from home theater PC to gaming PC is more than the cost of a 360 after all. However, after a decade since I bought my last desktop (as I've said, I've been a laptop guy), shopping for a new PC is simply overwhelming. Can anyone recommend min specs for an HTPC, or a vendor that won't demand I use the most up-to-date components (and therefore the most expensive ones)? (And might this warrant a new thread?)
not so much, 9800 was more against the geforce FX. Anyway, your card is extremely old, so I don't know why you expect it to run the following games you listed all that well.
My PC that I bought more than 2 years ago hasn't done this yet. They don't magically break after 2 years. You just have to start lowering the resolution.
The point is though that on a 360 or any console you dont have to lower the resolution. you know that any game you buy ever for that console will run at its fullest potential and will look exactly like trailers/screens/demos etc. With PC gaming what you see isnt always what you get.
I know it isnt a major issue, and really if you have a half decent PC you might never notice, but it is a case to buy a console. Especially with a lot of games going on both 360 and PC sometimes it is just easier and cheaper to get the console version and run it rock solid when you might have issues/patches/performance issues on a PC.
However, with Vista and the Games for Windows thing, MS is trying to standardise PC gaming, which is kinda good thing. Basically, some people just prefer the kind of no nonsense approach console gaming has. Buy it - stick it in the console - play it.
Dude I played oblivion on the 360 and it pretty much sucks balls compared to running on a PC.
~$575 on top of the 'bare-bones PC.' This includes everything except the monitor. I talked about this with my friend earlier and we figured that's the rough price if you get most of your parts from NewEgg and put it together yourself.
Well yeah, but the point is that when a new game comes out you can and will play it at a decent quality. There is no guarantee it will play to the same quality on a PC.
Im not being weird here, I own a ridiculously top end PC and an xbox 360. Ill probably be buying PC Bioshock just cause it will be cheaper and I have to save every penny this fall.
But if, say, I had kept my old PC (roughly an ati radeon x800pro level system, bout 4-5 years old) then sure it could have played Half Life 2 decent at launch. But it sure as fuck couldnt play Oblivion without turning EVERYTHING waaay down. The xbox 360 can, however, play both of those games at a high quality and decent framerate.
Its really a case of stability. Sure PC games ostensibly look better overall, visually, but you are always playing a game of balance to get the best visuals and the best framerate by tweaking the settings, upgrading drivers etc. Some people, a lot of people, just want the ease of mind of having the ability to put the disc in and play the game. No install, no messing around tweaking it and calibrating etc. That does count for a lot.
[edit] Also, why are you comparing the 360 to a computer that's older than the console itself? Can you play Oblivion on the original Xbox?
SPARTAAAAA.
DX10 is fairly unplayable on any system at the moment, especially considering the improvements are rarely noticable. And the 360 is a dx9 machine, so basically yeah... it'll look just as good on a 360.
Ok, cool. I was watching some videos of all the cool water effects and awesome lighting, and was worried that might be DX10 exclusive. But now I guess it's not.
Doesn't sound too terribly better in all honesty, but might could be a nice bonus for those with DX10 hardware and Vista. Assuming, of course, the framerate doesn't completely tank (hello Company of Heroes).
Dunno what kind of parts you're throwing in there to get that price.
I built my entire computer, barring KBM/Monitor/Speakers for ~$650. X1950pro for 135, 2 gigs of ram for $80 dollars, Athlon X2 4600+ for $125, and Abit KN9 for $75. I've seen ram down to $60 dollars now, the X1950 pro varies around, and the 4600+ is like $109 now. You shouldn't need to spend more than $400 dollars to upgrade to a very capable system.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I used to really enjoy the flexibility of PC gaming, mods etc...
But I really prefer just having a plug and play option in my 360. I dont need to worry about specs, I dont have any of the niggles that you can sometimes get with a PC - driver issues, things needing "tweaking" etc. I like the whole, plug it in and away you go thing.
I switched all my gaming to consoles and havent looked back. Especially for a "lounge/media center" setup - 360 all the way.
As an aside - I should come clean and say that I have a cheap mac mini I got off of ebay as a movie player... I've never looked into streaming avi's on a 360 - but I hear it can be done.
I would be just fine jamming out on a 360 with mouse/kb controls for FPS games and the controller for everything else. However, I'm not sure a mouse/kb combo will be even considered for a standard anytime soon.
But, when it finally came time to upgrade my PC again recently, I realized the jump from AGP to PCI-E was going to really set me back. Usually I just did the motherboard/ram/cpu and did the videocard as a seperate thing ( birthday money or seperate cash hoarding), but that wouldn't work this time without a 6 month layover or so.
So, I took a long hard look at the PC exclusive gaming horizon, and frankly for the first time pretty much ever I was severely underwhelmed. RTSs will remain a strong PC gaming bastion, but Starcraft 2, the upcoming genre standard, has very modest requirements. So the only thing besides that is MMO's, which are never resource intensive (or terribly interesting these days
Consoles now do FPS's extremely well, but the mouse and keyboard is probably always going to be superior to the gamepad in terms of control, and FPS's are usually where the graphics get pushed to the bleeding edge on PC's -- so if you're a heavy FPS guy, a PC may still make sense. The only thing is, I don't see a whole lot of those kinds of games on the horizon anymore, as I think developers are cluing in to the rampant piracy, video-card upgrade fatigue, and cheap console competition that is slowly whittling away the hardcore PC gamer market.
Unless you want to play UT2k7 with the best graphics you can get and the true M&KB experience, or Crysis, or are a devoted RTS fan, then I would definitely aim towards a console. PC gaming exclusives are dieing as production budgets escalate and publishers need the largest consumer base possible to justify the insane and spiraling costs, and games more and more seem to be ported to the PC after being designed with consoles in mind, often as a relative afterthought with issues and bugs abound. In fact, for the price of a great PC gaming machine from scratch, you could probably squeeze out an HDTV and a 360 in one purchase.
I'm really just noticing how dire the PC gaming landscape has become, compared to like 1998-2003. End of an era?
Yeah. I mean it's terrible. PC gaming is doomed
Well, my post/comment was pretty much directed at bigger budget, mainstream titles -- that post is kind of decieving. Especially in the late 90's you could probably make a list that long of full length, well reviewed PC titles from established dev houses that would actually sell well. That list in that post is pretty padded with small little indy games that will most likely be panned or passed over, either due to a deficit in quality (which is a common occurance on such lists) or a lack of press.
The games more within the scope of my post/comment are the higher profile ones; the vast majority of which ended up under the heading multi-platform in that particular thread. With development becoming increasingly console centric in attempts to garner the largest consumer base, those games will most likely be superior on consoles -- but the hottest looking games for PC never used to be sloppy seconds from consoles. RTS's make up the strongest PC lineup, but I acknowledged that would be the case, simply because of interface limitations.
So yeah, I still stand by my comment. PC gaming isn't dead, but it's a shadow of it's former self
I did say not coming soon to the PC, not that it wont be coming. Both Halo 1 and 2 came out 2 years and 2.5 years respectively after the console version. Resident Evil 4 came out over a year. I had not heard about a PC version of Assassin's Creed, so if it does come out simultaneously, then that's great. I can use my Xbox controller to play for I did not enjoy the controls of Warrior Within (game judgement aside), with keyboard + mouse. Again, something that's nice about PC as long as the devs give support those options.