175 réponses à ce sujet

[SoulRebel_1979]

Mr SeVerS wrote...

BetrayerOfNihil wrote...

That price tag has to try to make itself not look like a complete ****ing waste somehow. For around a thousand dollars, in addition to about a couple hundred every two or so years to keep it from going obsolete, you get all these little tiny pros and the ability to play with really pretty graphics. Then in a few years it slows/breaks down even with great care and know-how, like all electonics. Yeah, money well-spent. Even if I had a nice-paying job or won the lottery, I wouldn't put a single Penny into a building a gaming computer.

Please tell me youre trolling.

Lol, I think he's just incredibly uninformed about the cost of building and maintaining a gaming pc. 

[mpompeo27]

jotun04 wrote...

crappy controls on the consoles

you have to remove your thumb from the analog stick to sprint

You pretty much answered your own question.

To me, this is the trump card in any mouse+kb versus controller debate.  Argue all you want about the speed and precision of a mouse vs thumbstick, controllers are still gimped by the fact that you have to remove a thumb from one stick or the other to use the face buttons and D-pad unless you adopt some ridiculous claw grip.

This is not a fault of the controller, it is a fault in the game's control scheme. They should've copied  COD and used clicking in the analog stick for sprinting.

[Yajuu Omoi]

thegamefreek78648 wrote...

Torguemada wrote...

DopedGoat84 wrote...

I've had an Xbox for 7 years now, cost me £119.99.

A good PC gaming desktop back then would have cost around £800+ - unfortunately for the PC players they will constantly have to upgrade their machine to keep up with games coming out.

Not really no, i have had the same rig for about 5 years now and havent yeat found a game i cant play.

Ive had mine for a few years, only replaced my previous one cause it was a low end system i bought to hold me over till i could get a better computer put together.

Tyipicaly I will upgrade, better graphics card, better/more ram, secondary hard drive and spend $50 bucks.

By the way, how much does it cost to replace a console when one minor part goes out, like the graphics card?  The hard drive?  Or even the CD tray?

One tip about computer vs consoles...hardware will NEVER win for the PC side.
I have a 7 year old XBox 360, and it will ALWAYS play any game better than a 7 year old PC. Period.
A 7 year old PC would NOT be able to play ME3 without multiple upgrades.
Yes, computers NOW are far better than the XBox is. But you must compare things that are alike to have an accurate idea of the difference.

XBox 360 Requrements to play ME3...anything it needs...it already HAD 7 years ago.

PC Requirements for ME3:
OS - Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1, Win 7 - earliest release date is April 14, 2008, a few years too late (-1 for PCs)
CPU: 1.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (equivalent AMD CPU) -
RAM: 1GB for XP / 2GB RAM for Vista/Win 7
Disc Drive: 1x speed
Hard Drive: 2.5 GB of free space
Video: 256 MB* (with Pixel Shader 3.0 support)
*Supported chipsets: NVIDIA 7900 or better; ATI X1800 or better. Please note that NVIDIA GeForce 9300, 8500, 8400, and 8300 are below minimum system requirements, as are AMD/ATI Radeon HD3200, HD3300, and HD4350. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required. (POSSIBLE -2 for PCs)
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c August 2009 (included) 

ANd there you have it...XBox 360 >> Equaly timed PC. (Custom or not)

And thats just from the system requirements of a not very taxing game... 

Just to attempt to quell the insuing flame...Custom PCs NOW >>>>>> XBox 360


Edit: and for all that it DOESN'T matter... XBox 360 >>>>> PS3

And to answer your question about replacing parts...by the time that ANY part of a console goes out...the next system has long since been released.
My N64 is still playing games like it just came out of the box, so was my Gamecube till I sold it.
On a PC however, if you burn out your sound/video card because you overtaxed it (which is easy to do IF you don't know what you are doing) you have to spend $20+ to get a baseline one, or $100+ to get a high end one (though that isn't needed for these level of games, a $20 card will do)

so your arguement about price just became invalid...PCs are always more expensive to maintain than a console...since a console costs $0.00 to do so. Even a $1 ANYTHING for your PC would be more expensive.

Modifié par Yajuu Omoi, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:12 .

[Eelectrica]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

thegamefreek78648 wrote...

Torguemada wrote...

DopedGoat84 wrote...

I've had an Xbox for 7 years now, cost me £119.99.

A good PC gaming desktop back then would have cost around £800+ - unfortunately for the PC players they will constantly have to upgrade their machine to keep up with games coming out.

Not really no, i have had the same rig for about 5 years now and havent yeat found a game i cant play.

Ive had mine for a few years, only replaced my previous one cause it was a low end system i bought to hold me over till i could get a better computer put together.

Tyipicaly I will upgrade, better graphics card, better/more ram, secondary hard drive and spend $50 bucks.

By the way, how much does it cost to replace a console when one minor part goes out, like the graphics card?  The hard drive?  Or even the CD tray?

One tip about computer vs consoles...hardware will NEVER win for the PC side.
I have a 7 year old XBox 360, and it will ALWAYS play any game better than a 7 year old PC. Period.
A 7 year old PC would NOT be able to play ME3 without multiple upgrades.
Yes, computers NOW are far better than the XBox is. But you must compare things that are alike to have an accurate idea of the difference.

XBox 360 Requrements to play ME3...anything it needs...it already HAD 7 years ago.

PC Requirements for ME3:
OS - Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1, Win 7 - earliest release date is April 14, 2008, a few years too late (-1 for PCs)
CPU: 1.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (equivalent AMD CPU) -
RAM: 1GB for XP / 2GB RAM for Vista/Win 7
Disc Drive: 1x speed
Hard Drive: 2.5 GB of free space
Video: 256 MB* (with Pixel Shader 3.0 support)
*Supported chipsets: NVIDIA 7900 or better; ATI X1800 or better. Please note that NVIDIA GeForce 9300, 8500, 8400, and 8300 are below minimum system requirements, as are AMD/ATI Radeon HD3200, HD3300, and HD4350. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required. (POSSIBLE -2 for PCs)
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c August 2009 (included) 

ANd there you have it...XBox 360 >> Equaly timed PC. (Custom or not)

And thats just from the system requirements of a not very taxing game... 

Just to attempt to quell the insuing flame...Custom PCs NOW >>>>>> XBox 360


Edit: and for all that it DOESN'T matter... XBox 360 >>>>> PS3

PC gamers thank x-box for holding innovation and technology back 7 yrs. Who needs innovation anyway?

[Chaoswind]

o.o

THAT HAS TO BE A TROLL

Equaly timed and super priced PC >>>> any console >_>

[Xaijin]

I have a 7 year old XBox 360, and it will ALWAYS play any game better than a 7 year old PC. Period.
A 7 year old PC would NOT be able to play ME3 without multiple upgrades.

Fundamentally incorrect, and ME1 through ME3 run just fine on 1.7 GHZ thunderbird and GF 6600/6800, much less anything else, and if you drop the shadow passing to one instead of three you can run it on a 5900.

Modifié par Xaijin, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:15 .

[Yajuu Omoi]

Chaoswind wrote...

o.o

THAT HAS TO BE A TROLL

Equaly timed and super priced PC >>>> any console >_>

No troll.
I work on PCs all day everyday.

A High end PC from 7 years ago would stand on equal ground with a console with hardware, but for software, consoles outclass them EVERYTIME.

For the simple reason that a console is made for the SOLE purpose for gaming, a PC does everything else.

A High end PC now will outclass an XBox 360 at EVERYTHING, but will not hold up against the next generation of gaming consoles.

If a PC was built for the sole purpose of gaming...it wouldn't be a PC, it would be a console...seriously.
Microsoft is trying to turn the 360 into a console PC so-to-speak, and it will not stand up to the strength of a PC.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Xaijin wrote...

I have a 7 year old XBox 360, and it will ALWAYS play any game better than a 7 year old PC. Period.
A 7 year old PC would NOT be able to play ME3 without multiple upgrades.

Fundamentally incorrect, and ME1 through ME3 run just fine on 1.7 GHZ thunderbird and GF 6600/6800, much less anything else, and if you drop the shadow passing to one instead of three you can run it on a 5900.

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Eelectrica wrote...

PC gamers thank x-box for holding innovation and technology back 7 yrs. Who needs innovation anyway?

As for games like ME3? I could say it is a fair bet. But what do you say about games that release for PC only?
Games like World of Warcraft?
What are the specifications for that game again...or even its newer releases?
Lower than those of ME3, which to be honest, and I've said it once, is not a very taxing game on any platfome.

SO, I understand your point, and I concede that it COULD be valid...but...I don't think so at this moment...yet...someone is bound to bring up specs for a high end game and prove me wrong...

[Xaijin]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

I have a 7 year old XBox 360, and it will ALWAYS play any game better than a 7 year old PC. Period.
A 7 year old PC would NOT be able to play ME3 without multiple upgrades.

Fundamentally incorrect, and ME1 through ME3 run just fine on 1.7 GHZ thunderbird and GF 6600/6800, much less anything else, and if you drop the shadow passing to one instead of three you can run it on a 5900.

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

You mean set the shadowing passing to the same as the Xbox and still maintain a higher non scaled resolution?

Perhaps you should stick to subjective dissertations.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Xaijin wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

I have a 7 year old XBox 360, and it will ALWAYS play any game better than a 7 year old PC. Period.
A 7 year old PC would NOT be able to play ME3 without multiple upgrades.

Fundamentally incorrect, and ME1 through ME3 run just fine on 1.7 GHZ thunderbird and GF 6600/6800, much less anything else, and if you drop the shadow passing to one instead of three you can run it on a 5900.

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

You mean set the shadowing passing to the same as the Xbox and still maintain a higher non scaled resolution?

Perhaps you should stick to subjective dissertations.

No, I'm talking about completely downgrading the game.
You'd have to drop the Rez, ScanT etc etc.
You'd end up with extremely low texture, horrible clipping, and well...you simply would NOT be playing the same game.


Do you even realize what the specs would BE on even a HIGH END PC 7 years ago?
Don't even bother the average...thats not even worth trying.

Modifié par Yajuu Omoi, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[Eriseley]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

If the newer game is identical to the console version, it stands to reason that the PC would run it similarly to the console. It seems to me that many of the newer PC games would perform so poorly on an old PC because the games are designed for newer PCs, where as newer console games are designed for the same hardware. That is, turn off some features on the newer PC titles, and you'll be fine.

Perhaps there is some efficiency gain from a slimmer OS and maybe a more streamlined hardware setup, and I'm not sure what kind of screen resolutions consoles are called upon to display these days, but I imagine the above is a larger factor.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Eriseley wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

If the newer game is identical to the console version, it stands to reason that the PC would run it similarly to the console. It seems to me that many of the newer PC games would perform so poorly on an old PC because the games are designed for newer PCs, where as newer console games are designed for the same hardware. That is, turn off some features on the newer PC titles, and you'll be fine.

Perhaps there is some efficiency gain from a slimmer OS and maybe a more streamlined hardware setup, and I'm not sure what kind of screen resolutions consoles are called upon to display these days, but I imagine the above is a larger factor.

You're thinking along the right lines...but you have to realize.
A high end PC 7 years ago would not have the capabilities to run a newer game of today, as it was not built to. The 360 was BUILT to handle all the games made till the next gen console would be released, and even then after.

Like I said, the 360 and a 7 year old PC stand equal on most hardware, but the console takes the advantage when it comes to the software needed to play the game.

Modifié par Yajuu Omoi, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Kazztore]

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost? I've been looking at them, but i don't know if it's really worth the money. I don't know much about stats, but i saw a system that was around $1300 dollars and supposedly provided over 100 fps for most of the games tested and that sounds good. Is it? how much did yours cost and what's your average fps? I've always stuck with consoles because they're cheaper and seem to have longer lives. Computers seem to grow old in a couple of years where as consoles last at least twice that.

[Eriseley]

I dunno, in the case of ME3 for instance, you just need XP and Direct X 9c, which aren't problems. I'm pretty sure PC-only games are still compat with those specs, though not certain.

Edit: After a little bit of searching, looks like a mixed bag but moving towards DX10 and above only on PC. There was the switch from single to dual-core, too, so you can certainly get left behind, but actually XP and DX9 endured for a hella long time.

Modifié par Eriseley, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:58 .

[Yajuu Omoi]

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost? I've been looking at them, but i don't know if it's really worth the money. I don't know much about stats, but i saw a system that was around $1300 dollars and supposedly provided over 100 fps for most of the games tested and that sounds good. Is it? how much did yours cost and what's your average fps? I've always stuck with consoles because they're cheaper and seem to have longer lives. Computers seem to grow old in a couple of years where as consoles last at least twice that.

1300...? WAY TOO MUCH.
Don't care WHO or WHERE you are buying it from $1300 is NOT an okay price, even for a high end PC!!

[Yajuu Omoi]

Eriseley wrote...

I dunno, in the case of ME3 for instance, you just need XP and Direct X 9c, which aren't problems. I'm pretty sure PC-only games are still compat with those specs, though not certain.

You'd need the SP3 update for XP, and that came out in 2008 years too late. -1 for PCs
the Hardware of a high end PC could handle it fairly well, might burn out if you try to do anything else while playing the game though (360 can't do much of anything while playing a game and music doesn't count) PC=360
and Direct X is included with the game, so it doesn't really matter either. PC=360

So, like I said, a HIGH END PC could handle it if it was focused ONLY on gaming...but you'd ahve to wait for the software to catch up so you COULD play.

I'm not saying PCs are bad, but its like saying that an Expensive Crossover bike is better than a Dirt bike at off road riding...its just not. it CAN do it, yes, but the thing that is MADE to do it, will perform better at each equal rank.

[Perlicka]

pc user here
and i still think that consoles are overpriced hw i would throw into trash
whats not cheap is some monitor or two if u need them and case , and a rest you dont need to change so often
my pc is around 2 years old and im pretty sure i can use it for 3 -5 or more years ( if i dont get "new parts horny")
I am someone who would be considered poor , based on europian monthly wages, but still i prefer pc over consoles
you can use pc for more then just a gaming (ok, i need only putty for my work, but still...)
its a myth that you need high end pc for new games, all games are suited for consoles ... so my pc will last long , in a meantime i could change RAM or graphic card, but it will take a looooooong time to need of changing motherboard and processor

(sorry for my english (not my native) + i had some kind of celebration today and its 4am and im still little drunk...not used to alcohol...)

[Eriseley]

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost?

Yeah that's pretty steep. I think I spent about...800? 250ish for cpu, 250ish for gpu, 100ish for mobo and about 50 a pop for other components. You could knock 100 off the cpu and gpu each and still have something good when I specced mine out, if I recall.

Modifié par Eriseley, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:34 .

[Zaidra]

Jeff Numbers wrote...

 What I'm talking about is looking around while you sprint. With the crappy controls on the consoles you have to remove your thumb from the analog stick to sprint, therefore you can't change the direction you're running unless you stop at every right angle to change your camera view.

It can be a pain in the ass trying to quickly get to point A to point B for an objective or revive when you have to stop so many times along the way.

While PC players can fly around the maps without ever having to stop to change camera angles.

Please Bioware let us re-map our controls.

That's kind of your fault that you chose a console... one of the many reasons I think PC is superior to consoles, and like the controls much better, and am much better with them. 

[Eriseley]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

You'd need the SP3 update for XP, and that came out in 2008 years too late. -1 for PCs

For the multi-core transition?  To take advantage of the hardware at all, yeah, but games prior to 2008 obviously didn't require it, and the software transition was fine once they did...it's just when games started requiring multi-core that you'd be in trouble.

I do agree the PC gaming world has some moving targets though, as technology changes, and different developers have different philosophies on game requirements, haha. But there can be some conflation between actual obsolescence and the psychological drive to have all features turned on. It's just a muddier world, where as consoles are obviously straightforward.

Modifié par Eriseley, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[wizardryforever]

Wait, so the control scheme is more difficult to use on consoles?  Does this mean that console players are more l33t than PC players because they're essentially dealing with a handicap? 

Honestly, the reason why people choose to play on a console is (among other things) that it is "plug and play."  It's a simple matter of plugging in your console, turning it on, and popping in your game disc.  And you're off!  Compare that to buying a new PC and playing a new game on it.  Even if you know exactly what to do (a lot of people don't, even some PC gamers), it's still a bit of a hassle.  Add to that the fact that the PC's versatility means that it is more vulnerable to break-downs and virus attacks, and you have even more headaches to deal with.

There's also the fact that any game designed for your platform is guaranteed to work on your console with no special input from you.  Not so for PCs, which often have you jump through innumerable hoops (driver updates, DirectX compatibility, graphics card limitations, etc.) to play any given new game, even if was designed specifically for your platform.

And on a more personal level, I don't see how you people stand using a keyboard to move your character around.  Ask any console player if they'd rather move around with the left analog stick or the d-pad (which functions similar to a WASD setup) and they'll look at you like you've gone insane.  The analog stick wins everytime.  Simple omni-directional functionality on the same level as the "look" analog stick on the other side.  The mouse is awesome, but not awesome enough that I would be willing to endure WASD controls as mandatory.  As far as I'm concerned, WASD is the worst thing to happen to PC gaming that I'm aware of.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Eriseley wrote...

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost?

Yeah that's pretty steep. I think I spent about...800? 250ish for cpu, 250ish for gpu, 100ish for mobo and about 50 a pop for other components.

I started off only paying about $400 for mine
Granted its been upgraded countless times over the past 9 years...I think the only thing remaining from that 2003 unit is the hard drive...and its now a removable... 

Final costs as is now:

Twin monitors = $200, simple 24" widescreen.
Case = $50, its gonna sit in my house all day...who cares what it looks like as long as it works.
Motherboard = $100
2 CPUs = 150 each, $300
Graphics = $40, I play some minor games on it...nothing major...most Video editing anyway.
Audio = $120
RAM = $80
Main HardDdrive = $60
Removable Hard Drive = $10, even back then...it was cheap.

So I totaled out around $960, But thats due to the extra Monitor and 2nd CPU, along with the Audio Card...so If you cut out the secondary stuff and bring down the audio, while boosting the video...you'd sit around $700 approx.

$800 would fit right in.

Modifié par Yajuu Omoi, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:42 .

[ZombieGambit]

Am I the only one who has no trouble steering around obstacles and changing direction without using the "claw" grip on consoles?