Support NeoGAF

[Insertia]

As for the main topic at hand... sure you can get a gaming PC for under $2000. But you won't get one for $200-300 that will start out top-of-the-line, and continue to play new games for 5 years.

I gurantee i will be running my shit set-up for another 3-4 years and it'll play next-gen PC games fine.
The settings won't be maxed, but I could care less.
I had a TNT2 for four years before I decied to upgrade. It suited my PC gaming needs perfectly.

 

[dream]

As for the main topic at hand... sure you can get a gaming PC for under $2000. But you won't get one for $200-300 that will start out top-of-the-line, and continue to play new games for 5 years.

Well, not for a $300 price point but I think it really depends on what you consider a quality gaming experience to be. I know people with decent systems powered by Radeon 9800s and they're practically lining up at Best Buy to get in on the first batch of X800XTs. Then they go home and play the same games at the same resolution with maybe a step up in anti-aliasing. Then I see MrBob who has been speccing out GeForce 6800s and Radeon X800s for months now but he still hasn't taken the plunge -- and I suspect that's partially because he's still getting a decent gaming experience from his GeForce 4.

Upgrading is a pretty sick cycle because you constantly go from being CPU-limited to GPU-limited and back again. The thing is, with SM 2.0 as a baseline, we have a decent shader model that doesn't just hit a sweet spot between performance and functionality but it also hasn't had its full potential realized yet. You see stuff like UnrealEngine 3 and think "holy fucking shit I want it now give it to me now I don't care if I have to buy an entire new system to play it just give me that fucker right fucking now" but games based on that engine won't be available for another 3 years. In the meantime, the games that are going to ship over the next year are designed for the cards that are installed now -- the 9800s, the NV35s -- and they'll even include fallback modes for older cards. PCs might not last for 5 years without requiring an upgrade for performance but I'd argue that, unless you're one of those watercooling freaks who overclocks everything in order to game at 85000x71000, a typical PC will keep you happy for at least as long as a typical console generation.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Yeah, for quite a few years now it's been relatively inexpensive to build a nice gaming PC. Even if you don't like ordering online, places, like Fry's Electronics, are easy enough to build a great machine for less than $500. You just have to check out the sales ads they throw out 3-4 days every week.

Still, many people just don't like to play PC versions of games for the main reason of convenience and comfort.
No patches, no drivers, no conflicts, no sitting in a chair staring at a screen a few inches in front of you, etc.
Playing on the couch or recliner with a nice controller and using your existing big-ass HDTV and already-bought surround system is more appealing to most than the above. It's a matter of preference...especially depending on the genre. RTS is still most at home on PC, though I really think that there should be more console-specific RTS-like games released.

 

[The Promised One]

You'll never see games like Ninja Gaiden, DMC, and a slew of other kick ass action titles on the PC. Within the last year, some devs (like Ubisoft) have been pretty good about making PC ports, but most aren't. Not to mention I hate playing with a keyboard/mouse, even for FPS's.

I also find the majority of the type of games that are on the PC boring.

I'm just a console game fan, but that's just me.

 

[The Shadow]

PC gaming is more expensive then console gaming. It's not as expensive as people make it out to be, but anyway you look at it, it costs more then owning a console. $400 per year will keep you in a very adequate gaming PC.

Very true.

I think the problem lies in the fact that PC gamers tend to be very egocentric. They have experience upgrading and building PCs and because of the knowledge and practice, they automatically assume anyone with a Phillips screwdriver can build a cheap PC on their own just like that, even if that person has never seen the inside of a PC before.

Not everyone spends all that time on the PC and not everyone considers it a hobby. It's not so much the cost but the time and dedication that comes with it as well, particularly for those who aren't PC savvy.

So no, PC gaming as a hobby doesn't have to be expensive but only if you're a do-it-yourself-er. Not everyone is.

What I find funny is people with a $3000 TV, a $2000 6.1 setup, and a monthly gaming budget of $300 complaining about having to buy a new videocard every 18 months.

There's a certain merit to their complaints. A $3000 TV or a $2000 6.1 setup doesn't need to be upgraded as often as a $300 video card. Granted, if you don't mind turning the detail and resolution down in games as your video card ages it'll last you a while but generally video cards do need to be upgraded frequently (18 months or so) if you want to keep up with the newest games.

 

[ravingloon]

Here's my one arguement with your statement Shadow: Other than doing a little research to discover the most stable mobos for your processor, putting together a PC is pretty darn easy. Do you need to have some computer intelligence? Yes. But if you can't put together a PC by yourself, PC gaming isn't for you. You have to be able to diagnose/fix the occasional glitch (software). If your PC skills are limited to web brosing and hitting the Word shortcut, and you're unwilling (Yes. Unwilling. PC skills are nothing but sitting down and experimenting till the problem is solved. There's no book to teach people. And no inate skills you're born with. It's do you wanna teach yourself? Which is why kids are more open minded than adults with computers) stick to consoles.

 

[dark10x]

My cheap-o PC can run pretty much any game 60fps locked

I'm sure this was already mentioned, but you are incorrect. Either you are unable to tell framerates, you are telling a lie, or you only play older games.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that stuff like Far Cry is going to run at 60 fps locked. None.

 

[LAMBO]

I play far cry on a 800mhz tbird, radeon 9100, 384 mb of ram, and while it doesn't look as good as alot of the pics you see, it's kills any console fps i've ever played in terms of graphics(and gameplay too, far cry is pretty damn good).

 

[dark10x]

I play far cry on a 800mhz tbird, radeon 9100, 384 mb of ram, and while it doesn't look as good as alot of the pics you see, it's kills any console fps i've ever played in terms of graphics(and gameplay too, far cry is pretty damn good).

2006 visuals

1998 gameplay

 

[LAMBO]

I wish for more 1998 gameplay, i think Freespace 2 came out that year.

 

[dark10x]

I wish for more 1998 gameplay, i think Freespace 2 came out that year.

Good lord, I would hate to have other games play as poorly as Far Cry...

FreeSpace 2 kicks serious ass though!

 

[Mrbob]

Heh. I do think sometimes PC gamers do go overboard with their complaints in performance with games.

I was involved in a thread on a PC specific fansite. The gamer was complaining about poor performance with Farcry with his 9800 Pro. And I figure he must have been playing at a higher resolution with AA/AF applied. As already mentioned, I have a GF4 with a mobile 2400 at a decent speed (2.4ghz) and I get really playable framrates on the farcry demo with medium setting at 1024 by 768 resolution. Between 25-60FPS. Look how old that Geforce 4 card is. Obviously, I didn't have all the bells and whistles on like the guy with his 9800Pro, but the game still looked really good. I finally coaxed the answer and found out he was playing at 1280 X 960 with 2XAA/8AF applied. Well no duh that Farcry was running slow!

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that PC Gaming can be as cheap or expensive as you want it to be. And you don't need the top of the line card to make games playable. I've been following the 6800 and X800 series closely. And while I could afford one of those cards, I still might end up with a 9800Pro in my system. I don't like the look of games with heavy AA/AF applied, and this is the area where these next gen cards work the best. If you take away AA/AF and play at a decent resolution (1024 X 768) a card like the 9800Pro does hold up well against these next gen cards. I love PC gaming, but even I have a tough time plunking down 400 dollars on a videocard. No matter how awesome they handle games with AA/AF at high resolutions. Heck, I've never spent more than 200 on one. This is why I don't mind if Doom 3 and Half Life 2 keep on getting pushed back a bit. Each day gets one step closer to having the 6800GT/X800Pro drop towards 300.

Dark, did you play through all of Farcry? I did read one bit of stuttering from a user that had a similar setup to mine with a 9800Pro and it gave me a slight bit of concern. He mentioned about playing in 1024 by 768 with no aa/af applied and hit a heavy battle in a volcano area. Stated this dropped his frames REALLY low. Like 2-5 FPS. Did you experience anything like this on your 9800Pro? I know it is painful to bring up the gaming memory of Farcry.

 

[dark10x]

I have a 9700 Pro, actually, and I did complete Far Cry. It never dropped to unplayable framerates. It actually ran at the lowest framerates during certain indoor segments. There was one level (Archives) that actually dropped as low as ~15 fps. Generally, things were much smoother than that.

I was playing at the highest detail (with the exception of shadows, which were set to medium) at 1024x768 with no AA/AF.

 

[Vormund]

I'm not a big fan of AA..I'd rather just bump up the res.

 

[Buffy4ever]

umm. you can do more with a pc than consoles. (going back to the debate.. above). So for the $400 bucks mentioned, you can have a mp3 player, do your homework/accounts/, surf the net, pr0n, play games... I would say value plus.If you chuck in that bit more money, you'd get a nice screen (LCD or big ass mother CRT); only placed here for comparative sake cause you will need a TV for console gaming.

We all know you can do more with computers than game systems. But that not what we are talking about. Gaming PC. For me it cost to much to upgrade my computer every year.
I would rather spend $150 on a console. Most people already have a TV when they buy a console. I don't have HDTV like some people but than again I don't have the money to buy one. I think there a lot more variety on consoles than PC nowadays. And for me it is heard to find older pc games. most stores in my area don't carry that many pc games anymore. I am talking about stores like EB and best buys.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

We all know you can do more with computers than game systems. But that not what we are talking about. Gaming PC. For me it cost to much to upgrade my computer every year.
I would rather spend $150 on a console. Most people already have a TV when they buy a console. I don't have HDTV like some people but than again I don't have the money to buy one. I think there a lot more variety on consoles than PC nowadays. And for me it is heard to find older pc games. most stores in my area don't carry that many pc games anymore. I am talking about stores like EB and best buys.

yes we know but the way some of the fellas were carrying on; you just have to remind them. Besides gaming on the consoles and/or dvd.. there isn't much else you can do. (unless you chip the xbox.. but that's a different story. The value/cost of a modded box is also higher but then you no longer pay for games)

This whole thing about upgrading? With PCs, you get upgrades only if you want to get the best performance out of any next gen games; even then if you don't have it at MAX performance, it doesn't mean that it plays bad (as so many have emphatically stated).

As for the game situation; that's really got nothing to do with the machine now, does it. I mean, my local retailer doesn't have a lot of the titles I want but that hasn't stopped me. In this day and age; there's always ebay.. and shock horror: (going by the PC piracy) thread. YOu can always try some filesharing thing to get the games you want (not condoning piracy).

 

[Hitokage]

I'm sure this was already mentioned, but you are incorrect. Either you are unable to tell framerates, you are telling a lie, or you only play older games.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that stuff like Far Cry is going to run at 60 fps locked. None.

Turn everything to "off" or "low", and you can probably get 90fps easy.

...at least that's how it's SUPPOSED to be in PC gaming.