A) You're posting on this forum; unless you're on a notebook or someone else's computer, you already have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Consoles require a TV themselves, and if you want to play modern ones to their full potential, an expensive HDTV is required.
I'll post a list of parts for a decent gaming computer under $600 in a few minutes.
Or you could just get a VGA or HDMI cable for your console and use your computer monitor at HD resolution.
I wanted to answer this real quick even though it was said a little bit ago.
This is true, but what's also true is that you can just as easily hook up your new PC to whatever display you use for your console; even if it's an SDTV, you could use video out and get the same resolutions you get on your console games. If it's an HDTV, especially an LCD, even better.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Toss in a couple $1.50 cables (IDE and SATA) and you should be all set, for under $600 even with shipping. Obviously you could make some tradeoffs if you wanted; get a slightly worse video card in exchange for an Intel Core 2 Duo + appropriate motherboard, take out a gig of memory in exchange for a bigger HDD, whatever. But I think you get the idea.
@ihd: The computer above would not only match a PS3 or 360 in visual quality, it would exceed it. This machine would be more than sufficient to run Crysis at High settings, perhaps Very High, depending on resolution. Also, the PC has far more games than any console, due to its massive back catalog and huge selection of indie and freeware games.
That's actually a pretty decent rig. Damn NVIDIA and their 8800GT poking holes in my arguments! :x
Though strictly speaking, doesn't the 8800GT choke a little on Crysis maxed at 1920x1200?
Mentioning the PC's back catalog is kind of depressing, imo. Don't get me wrong - having been raised on the stuff, I've got a soft spot for the classics myself - but offering up PC past glories in the face of new and cutting-edge stuff on consoles feels slightly disingenuous to me.
the only thing I wouldn't trust in that rig is that motherboard. Biostar? $50? I dunno...
I've been using Biostar motherboards for years, and unlike Asus, Abit, and Gigabyte, they've never let me down. I'll grant that this is a very low-end model, but I suspect it would be fine.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
All he's saying is that the PCs the average consumer (ie the guy at Best Buy) aren't suitable for gaming on the graphical scale of the current consoles. If you go to your local Best Buy and look at the dreck they have for sale, you'll see he's dead on target.
The red statement isn't saying "PC = non-gaming platform" its saying "The PCs that the overall market consists of are a non gaming platform."
Its pretty obvious when you read the whole article.
EDIT: .....so I didn't notice this was already 12 pages long. beat'd times a million
A) You're posting on this forum; unless you're on a notebook or someone else's computer, you already have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Consoles require a TV themselves, and if you want to play modern ones to their full potential, an expensive HDTV is required.
I'll post a list of parts for a decent gaming computer under $600 in a few minutes.
1) I have a not-that-old monitor and anything dark i can't see any detail. no amount of adjustment fixes that. plus it's 4:3 and nice widescreens are $$
2) consoles don't have their "full potential" at HD. they'll run at the same framerate and everything no matter if you're in SD or HD, unlike computers.
Toss in a couple $1.50 cables (IDE and SATA) and you should be all set, for under $600 even with shipping. Obviously you could make some tradeoffs if you wanted; get a slightly worse video card in exchange for an Intel Core 2 Duo + appropriate motherboard, take out a gig of memory in exchange for a bigger HDD, whatever. But I think you get the idea.
@ihd: The computer above would not only match a PS3 or 360 in visual quality, it would exceed it. This machine would be more than sufficient to run Crysis at High settings, perhaps Very High, depending on resolution. Also, the PC has far more games than any console, due to its massive back catalog and huge selection of indie and freeware games.
No mouse, no keyboard, no Windows. If you want a gaming machine you're not running Linux. Unless you promote piracy then you're paying for Windows.
Also, you could run Crysis at High or Very High with that machine, if you like mediocre fps during intense combat. The gold standard for both the PS3 and the 360 is 60fps average at 720 x 1280 with 4XAA. You're not going to get that on Crysis with that machine. Would the PS3 or 360 be able to do that with Crysis? We don't know (yet), but that is the benchmark that all developers shoot for (and most succeed or come reasonably close to) on a machine that still costs ~33-50% less than what you propose ($400 PS3 or $280-350 360), not to mention is more complete (OS and controller included).
I wanted to answer this real quick even though it was said a little bit ago.
This is true, but what's also true is that you can just as easily hook up your new PC to whatever display you use for your console; even if it's an SDTV, you could use video out and get the same resolutions you get on your console games. If it's an HDTV, especially an LCD, even better.
No, actually you can't. Windows XP's minimum required resolution is 600 x 800 (let alone Vista). An SDTV is 480i. You would need an HDTV, a shitty HDTV would do, but an HDTV none the less. Consoles can, in fact, still use these ancient TV sets and are still very playable (I actually used to play Halo 3, Mass Effect, and CoD4 on my old ass 32" SDTV before I moved it to the same HDTV my PS3 is on).
Toss in a couple $1.50 cables (IDE and SATA) and you should be all set, for under $600 even with shipping. Obviously you could make some tradeoffs if you wanted; get a slightly worse video card in exchange for an Intel Core 2 Duo + appropriate motherboard, take out a gig of memory in exchange for a bigger HDD, whatever. But I think you get the idea.
@ihd: The computer above would not only match a PS3 or 360 in visual quality, it would exceed it. This machine would be more than sufficient to run Crysis at High settings, perhaps Very High, depending on resolution. Also, the PC has far more games than any console, due to its massive back catalog and huge selection of indie and freeware games.
No mouse, no keyboard, no Windows. If you want a gaming machine you're not running Linux. Unless you promote piracy then you're paying for Windows.
Also, you could run Crysis at High or Very High with that machine, if you like mediocre fps during intense combat. The gold standard for both the PS3 and the 360 is 60fps average at 720 x 1280 with 4XAA. You're not going to get that on Crysis with that machine. Would the PS3 or 360 be able to do that with Crysis? We don't know (yet), but that is the benchmark that all developers shoot for (and most succeed or come reasonably close to) on a machine that still costs ~33-50% less than what you propose ($400 PS3 or $280-350 360), not to mention is more complete (OS and controller included).
Windows might be an issue, but there's a good chance that any current PC owner (which most gamers, console or otherwise, are) still has an activation or two left on whatever copy of Windows XP he's currently using. My wife's bottom-of-the-barrel Dell laptop certainly did. Even if you have to buy a copy of Windows, you can likely find one for under $60 without too much trouble. Also, as I said before (and you so conveniently ignored), the chances of somebody who plays games not owning some kind of mouse and keyboard are very slim, and he probably has a monitor too. (Nothing wrong with using an older monitor, by the way; CRTs are often better for gaming than LCDs, and a CRT monitor is definitely a hell of a lot better than playing games on an old SDTV).
I'll concede your point about PC gaming and SDTVs, though.
Also, why are you spreading such blatant misinformation? The "gold standard" (whatever that's supposed to mean) on the PS3 and 360 is not 60fps. In fact, it's quite rare for games on those consoles to achieve such frame rates, and when they do--such as in Call of Duty 4--the resolution usually gets cut down significantly to accommodate the frame rates (which you could also do with Crysis on a PC). If there were a gold standard on consoles, which there's not, it would be 30fps. Not 60. Furthermore, the computer I listed would average above 40fps at 1280x720 in Crysis, which has better visuals than any game on the PS3 or 360.
Also, I never denied that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming. I merely punched holes through the oft-cited argument (hyperbole) that a good gaming PC costs $2,000, which it clearly doesn't. Even with an OS, mouse, keyboard, and monitor, it'd be less than half that.
I should also point out that your statements about an OS coming with consoles are very illusory; consoles include a very limited OS with little functional use, while a fast PC is useful for everything from simple internet browsing to hardcore 3D rendering. And while most everyone probably already has a PC, in my experience, it really is worthwhile in stability and ease of use to upgrade to a new machine every so often--even for everyday computer usage. This will only become more true as Vista continues to take over.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
All he's saying is that the PCs the average consumer (ie the guy at Best Buy) aren't suitable for gaming on the graphical scale of the current consoles. If you go to your local Best Buy and look at the dreck they have for sale, you'll see he's dead on target.
He pretty much nails it right there. The average user cannot play most modern PC games, thus eliminating the vast majority of the audience.
There are other problems like draconian copy protection and unstable buggy games as well.
Posts
I wanted to answer this real quick even though it was said a little bit ago.
This is true, but what's also true is that you can just as easily hook up your new PC to whatever display you use for your console; even if it's an SDTV, you could use video out and get the same resolutions you get on your console games. If it's an HDTV, especially an LCD, even better.
the only thing I wouldn't trust in that rig is that motherboard. Biostar? $50? I dunno...
The red statement isn't saying "PC = non-gaming platform" its saying "The PCs that the overall market consists of are a non gaming platform."
Its pretty obvious when you read the whole article.
EDIT: .....so I didn't notice this was already 12 pages long. beat'd times a million
1) I have a not-that-old monitor and anything dark i can't see any detail. no amount of adjustment fixes that. plus it's 4:3 and nice widescreens are $$
2) consoles don't have their "full potential" at HD. they'll run at the same framerate and everything no matter if you're in SD or HD, unlike computers.
No mouse, no keyboard, no Windows. If you want a gaming machine you're not running Linux. Unless you promote piracy then you're paying for Windows.
Also, you could run Crysis at High or Very High with that machine, if you like mediocre fps during intense combat. The gold standard for both the PS3 and the 360 is 60fps average at 720 x 1280 with 4XAA. You're not going to get that on Crysis with that machine. Would the PS3 or 360 be able to do that with Crysis? We don't know (yet), but that is the benchmark that all developers shoot for (and most succeed or come reasonably close to) on a machine that still costs ~33-50% less than what you propose ($400 PS3 or $280-350 360), not to mention is more complete (OS and controller included).
No, actually you can't. Windows XP's minimum required resolution is 600 x 800 (let alone Vista). An SDTV is 480i. You would need an HDTV, a shitty HDTV would do, but an HDTV none the less. Consoles can, in fact, still use these ancient TV sets and are still very playable (I actually used to play Halo 3, Mass Effect, and CoD4 on my old ass 32" SDTV before I moved it to the same HDTV my PS3 is on).
Windows might be an issue, but there's a good chance that any current PC owner (which most gamers, console or otherwise, are) still has an activation or two left on whatever copy of Windows XP he's currently using. My wife's bottom-of-the-barrel Dell laptop certainly did. Even if you have to buy a copy of Windows, you can likely find one for under $60 without too much trouble. Also, as I said before (and you so conveniently ignored), the chances of somebody who plays games not owning some kind of mouse and keyboard are very slim, and he probably has a monitor too. (Nothing wrong with using an older monitor, by the way; CRTs are often better for gaming than LCDs, and a CRT monitor is definitely a hell of a lot better than playing games on an old SDTV).
I'll concede your point about PC gaming and SDTVs, though.
Also, why are you spreading such blatant misinformation? The "gold standard" (whatever that's supposed to mean) on the PS3 and 360 is not 60fps. In fact, it's quite rare for games on those consoles to achieve such frame rates, and when they do--such as in Call of Duty 4--the resolution usually gets cut down significantly to accommodate the frame rates (which you could also do with Crysis on a PC). If there were a gold standard on consoles, which there's not, it would be 30fps. Not 60. Furthermore, the computer I listed would average above 40fps at 1280x720 in Crysis, which has better visuals than any game on the PS3 or 360.
Also, I never denied that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming. I merely punched holes through the oft-cited argument (hyperbole) that a good gaming PC costs $2,000, which it clearly doesn't. Even with an OS, mouse, keyboard, and monitor, it'd be less than half that.
I should also point out that your statements about an OS coming with consoles are very illusory; consoles include a very limited OS with little functional use, while a fast PC is useful for everything from simple internet browsing to hardcore 3D rendering. And while most everyone probably already has a PC, in my experience, it really is worthwhile in stability and ease of use to upgrade to a new machine every so often--even for everyday computer usage. This will only become more true as Vista continues to take over.
He pretty much nails it right there. The average user cannot play most modern PC games, thus eliminating the vast majority of the audience.
There are other problems like draconian copy protection and unstable buggy games as well.