Yet another PC vs Console price thread *spawn

[-tkf-]

There are flaws in your arguments too.

I am certain there is, i just think you haven't found them, yet

Blu-Ray Dirve 12x: $50
X360 Wireless Gamepad: $40
WiFi Dongle: $5.30
Bluetooth Dongle: $3.80
All from Newegg - If you want blu-ray playback then yes you'll have to buy software separatly or find a deal from another site that sells them together, I don't know US websites but I found this one in the UK for £60:

I found the prices there as well, i just didn't take the bottom scrapers, as for the Wireless controller, remember it has to be a PC edition since the standard play and charge doesn't work without a dongle.

Of course the above drive and software can both burn DVD's and play 3D blu-rays so you'll need to add the cost of a separate standalone unit to your console cost to achieve feature parity right?

Nope, i don't need to burn CD's nor DVD's on my console, it's not one of the feature lists on the back of the console package, but since 2006 i would expect it to be able to playback Blu-Ray, the unsurpassed champion of Hidef movies.

Most people who would consider building a system like this from scratch would of course be capable of doing it themselves or at least know someone who would do it for them for free. How else would they have come up with the component list in the first place?

Exactly, we are all nerds here, we live and breath this shit, so the comparison is 1000% flawed to begin with, none of us would be caught with a weak AMD cpu in our PC's. So who are we arguing for then? The pretend buyer that would like a PC that can run ports of Consoles games @ 60 fps. And he sure as hell wont be able to build his pc. So he has to pay someone to do it..

If you're going to start adding in petty things

It's not petty things, it's reality, i get a case of beer everytime i fix one of my friends computer (i am cheap so what). But it's a given that IF we want to compare the price of a gamer PC that runs console ports at 60FPS someone has to build it, right? And it's costly because suddenly we can't just pick the cheapest crap from newegg anymore, he has to buy a boxed PC somewhere.

Did you include the cost of a TV with your console?

If you connect your PC to the TV you have a point, my fault. But the premise for consoles is that the buyer has a TV, there may be some that come home with a console and is surprised with that requirement.

What evidence do you have that this PC with double the CPU power and about 40% more GPU power will be unable to match consoles in future titles? The PC has the same CPU and GPU feature set as the consoles, the same number of available CPU cores (which are all over twice as fast as their console counterparts) and at least in relation to the XB1 it sounds like it will soon even be running the same API which will me much lower level than any seen before on the PC.

History? I must admit i am just making basic assumptions,

Maybe someone should find the min spec PC
"Dual core CPU (AMD Athlon64 X2 2.1 Ghz (4050+)/Intel Core2 Duo 1.86 Ghz (E6300)
CPU Speed: Info
RAM: 1 GB (Win XP), 2 GB (Win Vista/7)
OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8
Video Card: DirectX 9 Graphics card with 512 MB Video RAM (Radeon HD 2600 XT/Geforce 8600)"

And compare it to the PS3 edition of Tomb Raider, it would be fun.

It's a given that with 8GB GDDR5 that some console games ported to the 60 FPS PC will run into trouble, maybe it will be easier for the XB1 ports.

Okay, so since you quoted exclusives from 2 consoles there your hardware cost just jumped up from $400 to $900. Ouch, not so cheap any more is it?

True, i should just have kept the list at PS3 exclusives and made it longer and gone for the biggest hits.

My point here is to illustrate that whichever console you choose, you still miss out on exclusives. Even if you own both the PS4 and XB1 you're still missing out on WiiU exclusives. Are you losing sleep over that?

Yep, and money

Or are you content to play the dozens of great games available already for your consoles?

Nope

The same applies to PC gamers expect we have a back catalog of thousands to choose from.

Yes, i have them as well, but the best are MP titles, what pure PC games over the last few years can't be missed.

Missing out on half a dozen AAA exclusives over the course of half a decade is hardly something to worry about when you have hundreds of AAA games already available to you.

Uncharted 1+2+3, Last of Us (plus DLC), ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, MSG4, GOD OF WAR (all 3), Infamous 1+2, Little Big Planet 1+2, Heavy Rain, GT5+GT6, Wipeout, Rachet and Clank series, Flow, Flower. There is plenty to play exclusive that is AAA out of the 220+ titles that are exclusive.

Maybe we should just stick to things that can be discussed objectively and that are, you know... true.

It is true sadly, just bought the new Lego game, runs on one PC not on another, just another day in PC land for many.

So you're saying we're now allowed to include hardware that was purchased during the previous consoles generation in this comparison? Awesome! Then for many the PC will be completely free (like mine) considering it was bought before the new consoles launched.

For many more it will be far cheaper than the new consoles since all that will be required is a GPU upgrade.

Either that or we assume a clean slate and thus no PS4 backwards compatibility and no way to play last generation games.

Nope, just saying that when the 360 didn't have BC this was the argument used against the PS3 having BC, and it's still used today. And it's still valid, depending on where you stand. And yes, you are absolutely right, there is no reason for you to own a Console or post in here if you play everything on your PC anyway

 

[-tkf-]

I'll forever argue that it's a flawed argument to ignore 30+ years of games.

Another Soldier in the DD war, physical forever!

Right?

 

[pjbliverpool]

I am certain there is, i just think you haven't found them, yet

I found the prices there as well, i just didn't take the bottom scrapers, as for the Wireless controller, remember it has to be a PC edition since the standard play and charge doesn't work without a dongle.

I took all the prices from the previous time I did this in another thread and it seems the same components are no longer available on newegg. Nevertheless, the PC wireless controller is available on amazon.com with receiver for $40:

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Xbo...=8-1&keywords=wireless+xbox+360+controller+pc

And a wireless/blu-tooth dongle is a wireless/blu-tooth dongle, it either works or it doesn't. It's nothing more than a checklist feature anyway to satisfy your dubious stipulation that the PC must perfectly match the console feature for feature while completely ignoring the gargantuan feature set absent from the console but present in the PC. Artificially inflating your costs to make your argument a little stronger doesn't help anyone, the costs are as I stated.

Nope, i don't need to burn CD's nor DVD's on my console, it's not one of the feature lists on the back of the console package, but since 2006 i would expect it to be able to playback Blu-Ray, the unsurpassed champion of Hidef movies.

So it's okay for you to say the PC MUST be able to play Blu-Rays while at the same time saying the console doesn't have to be able to write DVD's? And you really don't see anything wrong with that?

And what of 3D Blu-Ray playback? It's fairly safe to say that standard Blu-Ray playback IS surpassed by 3D Blu-Ray playback. And since the PC can do that while the console can't, how to you intend to achieve feature parity for this?

Exactly, we are all nerds here, we live and breath this shit, so the comparison is 1000% flawed to begin with, none of us would be caught with a weak AMD cpu in our PC's. So who are we arguing for then? The pretend buyer that would like a PC that can run ports of Consoles games @ 60 fps. And he sure as hell wont be able to build his pc. So he has to pay someone to do it..

The system is a proof of concept of what's possible, not necessarily a purchasing recommendation. Regardless, it's quite easy to see who would want a system like this - someone who wants a PC for other reasons (work, internet browsing, media etc...) who also wants it to be capable of playing games as well as or a little better than the next gen consoles. Something like this would be a perfect system for them - and incidentally would not necessarily require a blu-ray player, wifi and blu-tooth adapters to satisfy that users requirements.

But suggesting you have to always include the cost of paying someone to build that system for them is ridiculous. Again, for said user to even consider a home brew system like this in the first place they would need to know a "nerd" like us who would have put together the spec list in the first place. Either that or they'll have the know how themselves. Or heck, they'll just learn, it's not difficult, everything I know is self taught. Sure some people may want self build PC's and they may have to go to a 3rd party vendor to do that and yes, they will end up paying more. But that doesn't mean that everyone who would ever consider building a system like this therefore needs to account for that cost. Aside from anything else, said user would be much better off just buying an off the shelf el cheapo desktop and sticking a bigger GPU in it. The end result would be largely the same and likely cheaper still.

It's not petty things, it's reality, i get a case of beer everytime i fix one of my friends computer (i am cheap so what). But it's a given that IF we want to compare the price of a gamer PC that runs console ports at 60FPS someone has to build it, right? And it's costly because suddenly we can't just pick the cheapest crap from newegg anymore, he has to buy a boxed PC somewhere.

So because some people who would want to build their own PC don't have the knowledge to build their own PC's or the ability to learn that knowledge, that completely invalidates the cost of this PC without adding on a build cost?

Okay, so lets run through a hypothetical situation: I want to build this PC for a friend who I'm trying to encourage into PC gaming (something I've done before) - I'm happy to do it for free. Please justify applying a build charge to this PC in that instance. Because if you can't justify applying a build charge to every single instance where such a PC would be built then you can't justify claiming that the cost without a build charge is invalid.

History? I must admit i am just making basic assumptions,

Exactly. To make these claims you need to benchmark a PC with twice the CPU power and 40% more GPU power (with the same feature set) than the Xbox 360 in last generation games at the console equivalent settings and resolution. I'm not aware of any benchmarks like that but even if they did exist they still wouldn't account for the massive efficiency advantage DX12 will over over DX9 (the old comparison point).

Maybe someone should find the min spec PC
"Dual core CPU (AMD Athlon64 X2 2.1 Ghz (4050+)/Intel Core2 Duo 1.86 Ghz (E6300)
CPU Speed: Info
RAM: 1 GB (Win XP), 2 GB (Win Vista/7)
OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8
Video Card: DirectX 9 Graphics card with 512 MB Video RAM (Radeon HD 2600 XT/Geforce 8600)"

And compare it to the PS3 edition of Tomb Raider, it would be fun.

Well the system should really pack something akin to a low clocked Phenom X3 + Radeon HD3750. Run Tombraider on minimum settings at sub 720p and yes indeed that would be an interesting comparison. Although GPU's do drop out of driver support after certain number of years so the old 3750 may suffer because of that too. It's unlikely this generation will last that long so such a comparison isn't really fair - plus it still ignores the effect DX12 will have.

It's a given that with 8GB GDDR5 that some console games ported to the 60 FPS PC will run into trouble, maybe it will be easier for the XB1 ports.

It's more like 6-7GB of total system memory. The PC has 10GB. True the split between GPU and CPU may favour the console in some games but then you could always spend an extra $10 (current newegg prices) and opt for a 4GB GTX 760 which would most likely never be at any form of disadvantage in future games.

True, i should just have kept the list at PS3 exclusives and made it longer and gone for the biggest hits.

PS3 exclusives? You can't play any of those on the PS4. But letting you have that one for a moment, are you losing sleep over the fact you can't play Halo, Gears of War and Forza on your PS3 despite all the awesome games available for it? If yes, regardless of the fact you chose console over PC, you's still losing out on the exclusives front. If no, hey, welcome to my world.

Yep, and money

Your losing sleep because you can't play XB1 and WiiU exclusives? Okay... so why am I as a PC gamer in a much worse position than you? Are the half dozen PS4 exclusives that you'll enjoy over the next 5 years really going to make things so much better? I can't play all AAA games. Neither can you. I have thousands (literally) of games to choose from in my systems back catalog, you'll ultimately have a few hundred and amongst those will be a half dozen AAA games that aren't in my catalog. Am I really supposed to worry about this?

Nope

Right... so you're not happy with the games available on any given console and you MUST have all platforms and all games available to you (even though you'll clearly never have the money or time to play them all) in order to be happy? But I'm guessing that for the sake of your argument that specifically excludes PC exclusives, right?

Yes, i have them as well, but the best are MP titles, what pure PC games over the last few years can't be missed.

Tell that to all the people who prefer MMORPG games, or indie games, and the free to play java/fb type games. They represent the vast majority of gamers not just on the PC platform but of the gaming market in it's entirety. Just because these genres work against your argument does not make them irreverent. Just inconvenient, for you.

Uncharted 1+2+3, Last of Us (plus DLC), ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, MSG4, GOD OF WAR (all 3), Infamous 1+2, Little Big Planet 1+2, Heavy Rain, GT5+GT6, Wipeout, Rachet and Clank series, Flow, Flower. There is plenty to play exclusive that is AAA out of the 220+ titles that are exclusive.

Do you have all of those games? Does every PS3 gamer? Are any of them available on the PS4 - the platform we're discussing?

It is true sadly, just bought the new Lego game, runs on one PC not on another, just another day in PC land for many.

I have the new Lego game, installed and worked first time just like every other game I've ever installed on this PC.

If you want to start bringing subjective element like "crap user interface" into the discussion then it's equally valid for me to describe consoles as restrictive, limited and boring (in terms of customization). But we don't need to get into subjective rubbish like that.

 

[holsty101]

At newegg.com...

Have you tried pcpartpicker.com? I think it's a great (better even) alternative to the 'egg for specing out builds, has a bunch of regional options too so you can quickly switch between usa, ca, uk & some other euro countries.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Still, this article forgets to point out some aspects when, firstly, consoles have unfinished drivers for now,

There may be a few percent to gain here and there but what you already have in terms of drivers/API is largely going to be as good as it gets. No console would ever launch with "unfinished" drivers that severely limit (or even break) it's performance.

and secondly, they don't mention that if you want a gaming PC, it's not all about your graphics card and your CPU.

Well, yeah they did. There was a large part of the article dedicated to components other than the CPU and GPU.

How much does it cost an OS to make that hardware work?

£50, just like the article said?

How much a new gamepad or a PC adapter for your controller?

Agreed this should not have been excluded. However the PC does have a controller (K/M) our views on how good it is does not invalidate it's presence. Personally though I would have included the controller cost at £23.

What about the crap sound that comes out of those PCs with generic chips like Conexant Smartaudio that don't hold a candle to next gen consoles? Good soundcards aren't cheap.

I'm sorry but this is not true. 99% of PC's these days use onboard motherboard audio which is going to give you the same quality sound as the consoles. In terms of hardware acceleration, both consoles do offer more but then the PC has more than enough additional CPU power available to match and exceed the consoles audio processing capabilities.

What's the cost of a keyboard & mouse combo?

That was included in the article.

What about a camera for the PC which is like 100000000 billion times inferior to Kinect, if you want to use Twitch?

100 quadrillion times inferior indeed. I like that Not that a camera has anything to do with PC games but nevertheless here's a 2.5K webcam for $5:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826274040

Not to mention a headset to chat online. Right?

Hardly necessary but £7 for something far exceeding that which comes with the XB1 or PS4:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/dynamode-dh-878-gaming-headset-with-microphone-35mm-jack

What about the HDMI cable? It comes for free with your console. You have to buy it for your PC.

£1.62:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wired-up-Pl...TF8&qid=1394401506&sr=8-1&keywords=hdmi+cable

How many do you think you could buy with the average cost different of just one game? Do we really need to get into minutiae like this?

And the electricity bill? Those PCs need a lot more energy.

Lack of online subscription should cancel that out nicely.

No matter what they say, nothing beats consoles at power consumption/capabilities ratio.

Thanks to Maxwell that's now debatable. I'm not sure what power draw is on the new consoles but a GTX 750 + Haswell 4670T + SDD would probably have a better power draw/performance ratio - although the cost/performance ratio would be well off.

 

[-tkf-]

I took all the prices from the previous time I did this in another thread and it seems the same components are no longer available on newegg. Nevertheless, the PC wireless controller is available on amazon.com with receiver for $40:

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Xbo...=8-1&keywords=wireless+xbox+360+controller+pc

Cool, i should get one of those at some point, and it's actually $42, every dollar count

And a wireless/blu-tooth dongle is a wireless/blu-tooth dongle, it either works or it doesn't. It's nothing more than a checklist feature anyway to satisfy your dubious stipulation that the PC must perfectly match the console feature for feature while completely ignoring the gargantuan feature set absent from the console but present in the PC. Artificially inflating your costs to make your argument a little stronger doesn't help anyone, the costs are as I stated.

My experience with PC hardware is not the same as you i can see, i never buy the cheapest crap because price often follows quality. And i am not trying to win an argument, imho there is nothing to win, at most something to prove. And surprise, i find my opinion to be the right one

The idea is, find a PC that can compete and better the Console FPS, so that you can play MP Console titles at 60FPS. It's not the other way around, the Console can never match the PC's possibilities. So naturally the PC would have to offer ALL the consoles functions, and not the other way around.

So it's okay for you to say the PC MUST be able to play Blu-Rays while at the same time saying the console doesn't have to be able to write DVD's? And you really don't see anything wrong with that?

See above, and no i don't. This is not PC vs Console, this a PC that would like to be better at playing MP games than a Console.

And what of 3D Blu-Ray playback? It's fairly safe to say that standard Blu-Ray playback IS surpassed by 3D Blu-Ray playback. And since the PC can do that while the console can't, how to you intend to achieve feature parity for this?

When the consoles can play 3D then the PC has to support it, not the other way around.

The system is a proof of concept of what's possible, not necessarily a purchasing recommendation. Regardless, it's quite easy to see who would want a system like this - someone who wants a PC for other reasons (work, internet browsing, media etc...) who also wants it to be capable of playing games as well as or a little better than the next gen consoles. Something like this would be a perfect system for them - and incidentally would not necessarily require a blu-ray player, wifi and blu-tooth adapters to satisfy that users requirements.

Yep and that person isn't interesting in this discussion.

Aside from anything else, said user would be much better off just buying an off the shelf el cheapo desktop and sticking a bigger GPU in it. The end result would be largely the same and likely cheaper still.

Lets find one then? Would be good for the future discussion, right? You would have a valid point you could pull up.

So because some people who would want to build their own PC don't have the knowledge to build their own PC's or the ability to learn that knowledge, that completely invalidates the cost of this PC without adding on a build cost?

Yes, the consoles price includes that you get it assembled.

Well the system should really pack something akin to a low clocked Phenom X3 + Radeon HD3750. Run Tombraider on minimum settings at sub 720p and yes indeed that would be an interesting comparison. Although GPU's do drop out of driver support after certain number of years so the old 3750 may suffer because of that too. It's unlikely this generation will last that long so such a comparison isn't really fair - plus it still ignores the effect DX12 will have.

It's the recommended min specs for Tomb Raider, nothing else.

but then you could always spend an extra $10

More money, remember to add it

PS3 exclusives? You can't play any of those on the PS4. But letting you have that one for a moment, are you losing sleep over the fact you can't play Halo, Gears of War and Forza on your PS3 despite all the awesome games available for it? If yes, regardless of the fact you chose console over PC, you's still losing out on the exclusives front. If no, hey, welcome to my world.

I have a 360, i play the games i want to. And you know very well why used the PS3 as an example.

Your losing sleep because you can't play XB1 and WiiU exclusives? Okay... so why am I as a PC gamer in a much worse position than you? Are the half dozen PS4 exclusives that you'll enjoy over the next 5 years really going to make things so much better? I can't play all AAA games. Neither can you. I have thousands (literally) of games to choose from in my systems back catalog, you'll ultimately have a few hundred and amongst those will be a half dozen AAA games that aren't in my catalog. Am I really supposed to worry about this?

Well i am not losing sleep, i am losing money because i will buy those consoles so that i can choose what to play one them as well. Compared to me you are in a worse situation, you can only play PC games, and not the best games made the past years on consoles. Sure, you can play Doom, Wolfenstein, Commander Ken etc on your PC. So can i btw, but it's not what i play on my PC on a daily basis. But thats beside the point.

Right... so you're not happy with the games available on any given console and you MUST have all platforms and all games available to you (even though you'll clearly never have the money or time to play them all) in order to be happy? But I'm guessing that for the sake of your argument that specifically excludes PC exclusives, right?

Nope, i asked you about those elusive PC exclusives.

Tell that to all the people who prefer MMORPG games, or indie games, and the free to play java/fb type games. They represent the vast majority of gamers not just on the PC platform but of the gaming market in it's entirety. Just because these genres work against your argument does not make them irreverent. Just inconvenient, for you.

The market share for those games, besides a few MMO's are so tiny it doesn't compare to the superior Console market.

Do you have all of those games? Does every PS3 gamer?

I have them all except for heavy rain. Playstation Plus baby!

Are any of them available on the PS4 - the platform we're discussing?

Ahh that is right, we discussing a Console that just came to market so it's strictly forbidden to see at the past and use that as an indication on how things might work out.. sure..

I have the new Lego game, installed and worked first time just like every other game I've ever installed on this PC.

You must be the only one in the world that never had a problem with a PC game. This is remarkable. If you read the forums on steam you can see just how lucky you are, you should play powerball. It's a fact it didn't work on one machine (and a first for that machine as well) and worked on another.

If you want to start bringing subjective element like "crap user interface" into the discussion then it's equally valid for me to describe consoles as restrictive, limited and boring (in terms of customization). But we don't need to get into subjective rubbish like that.

Sure, but compared to the PC the consoles UI is superior for what it has to do... And imagine if the PC comes with windows 8.. welcome to hell

 

[pjbliverpool]

The idea is, find a PC that can compete and better the Console FPS, so that you can play MP Console titles at 60FPS. It's not the other way around, the Console can never match the PC's possibilities. So naturally the PC would have to offer ALL the consoles functions, and not the other way around.

Why does the PC need to offer ALL the consoles functions is the purpose is to create a PC that can match or better the gaming experience of a console. Blu-Ray playback is not part of the gaming experience. And exactly what would a wireless adapter and a blu-tooth dongle be used for in a gaming sense for the PC?

Any peripherals that use these interface standards will come with their own adapters anyway, e.g. the wireless control pad.

Losing blu-ray movie playback, blu-tooth connectivity and WiFI doesn't take away from the PC's gaming capabilities in the slightest.

See above, and no i don't. This is not PC vs Console, this a PC that would like to be better at playing MP games than a Console.

Which requires the ability to play back blu-ray movies, why?

When the consoles can play 3D then the PC has to support it, not the other way around.

So to be a valid comparison as a games machine the PC must be able to play Blu-Ray movies but the fact that the PC can and the console can't play 3D Blu-Ray movies has no baring on the comparisons validity.

You keep saying, "the comparison requires the PC to match all console functionality but not the other way around" but I'm struggling to find a source for that requirement other than yourself. The article certainly doesn't say it and neither does anyone else in this thread make that claim. The artcle asks if a £500 PC can exceed the console gaming experience in terms of offering consistent 60fps @ 1080p in all games. That's all. And as it happens, it can't, but it can still offer a better gaming experience.

Yep and that person isn't interesting in this discussion.

Not that it has any baring on the validity of the discussion itself anyway but why woudln't they? The fictional persons requirements were clear: A PC for work/general PC stuff that can also match or exceed consoles for gaming. You seem to be saying that person would have to spend around $120 extra on functions that were never part of that persons original requirement. I think he'd be very interested in that.

Lets find one then? Would be good for the future discussion, right? You would have a valid point you could pull up.

A very quick search brought up this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/4100-1000GB...1_4?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1394455112&sr=1-4

It's only a quad core but those cores run at 4.5Ghz (Turbo) more than making up for the core defficiency. Aside from that it has a 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM, Windows 7 or 8, WiFi ready (!), DVD Writer and all for £309 leaving plenty of money for that GTX760 to drop in there.

Yes, the consoles price includes that you get it assembled.

But it doesn't include the cost of paying someone to advise you which console to get, how to plug it into your TV, how to setup your online account etc... It also doesn't include the cost of the delivery charge or the petrol in the car to go and pick the console up. I know the above are pretty stupid and won't apply to everyone but even if they apply to a tiny percentage of users then by your logic above, we must include that cost for all users regardless of whether or not they require those services/expenditures.

It's the recommended min specs for Tomb Raider, nothing else.

Which is copletely irrelivent to the argument that a more powerful PC can keep up with a less powerful console years after launch. If you want to deterine that based on histroy, then you do so with an analogous setup, not some random games minimum requirements. Incidentally though, since those minumum requirements are indeed much weaker than the analogous system that I mentioned (PhenonX3 + HD3750) then it certainly bodes well for that PC being able to play the game just fine on it's lowest (console equivilent) settings.

More money, remember to add it

That would have been a choice, not a requirement. Just like the choice to spend an extra $50-60 and get a 3GB 280 instead and double the PS4's GPU power rather than just besting it by 40%. As it's not a requirement for the system under discussion though it's not a price we need to add.

I have a 360, i play the games i want to. And you know very well why used the PS3 as an example.

Okay so now we're back to the multiple consoles argument are we? In order to play both XB1 and PS4 exclusives next generation you need to spend $900 on hardware. Well in excess of the PC's cost. You can't have it both ways, you either miss out on lots of exclusives or you buy more hardware. And previously owned last gen hardware doesn't count as we already established. Lest we start talking about previously owned PC hardware as well (not to mention any PC gamers will also have a previous gen console as well).

Well i am not losing sleep, i am losing money because i will buy those consoles so that i can choose what to play one them as well. Compared to me you are in a worse situation, you can only play PC games, and not the best games made the past years on consoles. Sure, you can play Doom, Wolfenstein, Commander Ken etc on your PC. So can i btw, but it's not what i play on my PC on a daily basis. But thats beside the point.

Wow, you're argument really is gettng quite mixed up now isn't it? So if I have this straight, the comparison you're now making is a £500 PC against a £350 + £400 console(s). So are we going to just ignore that price difference? Tell me, what's to stop me picking up a PS4 to suppliment y PC for those exclusives you talk about? That's only a £100 premium over your setup and now I have all the PS4 exclusives plus the better multiplatform games on the PC. Now I'm only missing out on the XB1 and WiiU exclusives. Should I still be losing sleep?

The argument simply degenerates into nonsensical point scoring as soon as you bring in factors like "well I have a PC too to play all those old games". The discussion started as a choice between 1 PC and 1 console, that's how it should remain.

And in that case, if you go with the console you miss out on all the previous generations cross platform games, all the PC exclusives and 2 out of 3 current generation platforms exclusives. With the PC, what you get extra are the PC exclusives and all the previous gen cross platform games but you also miss out on 3 out of 3 platforms current generation exclusives. So in effect I've lost PS4 (Or XB1 or WiiU) exclusives but gained PC exclusives plus all previous generation cross platform games. I'm heart broken

Nope, i asked you about those elusive PC exclusives.

There are literally thousands. I'm not going to start listing them all but here's a really tiny subset to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PC_exclusive_titles

And no, just because they don't appeal to you it does not invalidate them as exclusive. Besides, in terms of what can be played on the PC but not the PS4 (or XB1 or WiiU) the list would be FAR longer and include most of the AAA hits from the last 8 years.

The market share for those games, besides a few MMO's are so tiny it doesn't compare to the superior Console market.

What does market share have to do with their existance?

I have them all except for heavy rain. Playstation Plus baby!

Ahh that is right, we discussing a Console that just came to market so it's strictly forbidden to see at the past and use that as an indication on how things might work out.. sure..

So you have evidence that in this age of increasing development costs, more standardisation on big 3rd party engines and much greater hardware similarity between the big consoles and PC that the platform specific exclusives will be just as prevalent as last generation? And you ignored by 3rd question anyway. Even if you do have every one of those games, does the average PS4 gamer? Or is it more realistic that within their game collection then may own half a dozen of them or so?

You must be the only one in the world that never had a problem with a PC game. This is remarkable. If you read the forums on steam you can see just how lucky you are, you should play powerball. It's a fact it didn't work on one machine (and a first for that machine as well) and worked on another.

Maybe I'm just just better at maintaining my PC than most. If your PC exceeds the minimum specs, is running reasonably decent drivers and isn't chock full of porn and other rubbish then there's little reason these days why a PC game should failt or either install or run first time. Sure there will always be exceptional game breaking issues and I've encountered one or two in the past but consoles are hardly immune to that kind of thing either **BF4 for example**

Sure, but compared to the PC the consoles UI is superior for what it has to do... And imagine if the PC comes with windows 8.. welcome to hell

Why? I can start a game just as easily if not more so on my PC than on a console. So why is it objectively better? Is it more intuitive for people without PC knowledge? Yes undoubtably. Is it more restrictive in terms of customisation? Yes undoubtably. Can it actually be less efficient than a well configured PC interace? Yes it sure as hell can.

So no, it's not objectively better, just easier to use. Each has pro's and cons and discussing them is beyond the scope of this topic.

 

[-tkf-]

Why does the PC need to offer ALL the consoles functions is the purpose is to create a PC that can match or better the gaming experience of a console. Blu-Ray playback is not part of the gaming experience. And exactly what would a wireless adapter and a blu-tooth dongle be used for in a gaming sense for the PC?

Of course Blu-Ray playback isn't part of the gaming experience, but it's part of the package you buy when you get a console, and it's part of the price that makes up the console. And since you can't take it away and get something cheaper i think it's only fair to expect the PC to show up with the same function. Imho of course.

Any peripherals that use these interface standards will come with their own adapters anyway, e.g. the wireless control pad.

One the awesome functions with my PS3 was the ability to use standard Blu-Tooth headset, and unless you buy one that specifical has an adapter it's not included. Most of the sets i have bought did not include one.

Losing blu-ray movie playback, blu-tooth connectivity and WiFI doesn't take away from the PC's gaming capabilities in the slightest. Which requires the ability to play back blu-ray movies, why?

So to be a valid comparison as a games machine the PC must be able to play Blu-Ray movies but the fact that the PC can and the console can't play 3D Blu-Ray movies has no baring on the comparisons validity.

Nope, but that is not the reason i want them included, and see above

You keep saying, "the comparison requires the PC to match all console functionality but not the other way around" but I'm struggling to find a source for that requirement other than yourself. The article certainly doesn't say it and neither does anyone else in this thread make that claim. The artcle asks if a £500 PC can exceed the console gaming experience in terms of offering consistent 60fps @ 1080p in all games. That's all. And as it happens, it can't, but it can still offer a better gaming experience.

I am my own best source! It's my opinion, that's it. The article hints at other advantages with the open PC platform, but as i said it's very hard to take a function away from the Console so i would expect the PC to match.

A very quick search brought up this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/4100-1000GB...1_4?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1394455112&sr=1-4

It's only a quad core but those cores run at 4.5Ghz (Turbo) more than making up for the core defficiency. Aside from that it has a 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM, Windows 7 or 8, WiFi ready (!), DVD Writer and all for £309 leaving plenty of money for that GTX760 to drop in there.

So there is actually no reason why it shouldn't be possible to get a PC built and installed, so why not use that as a base?

But it doesn't include the cost of paying someone to advise you which console to get, how to plug it into your TV, how to setup your online account etc... It also doesn't include the cost of the delivery charge or the petrol in the car to go and pick the console up. I know the above are pretty stupid and won't apply to everyone but even if they apply to a tiny percentage of users then by your logic above, we must include that cost for all users regardless of whether or not they require those services/expenditures.

Everything you said above goes for the PC as well, the difference is that the console doesn't come in parts without a OS installed.

Which is copletely irrelivent to the argument that a more powerful PC can keep up with a less powerful console years after launch. If you want to deterine that based on histroy, then you do so with an analogous setup, not some random games minimum requirements. Incidentally though, since those minumum requirements are indeed much weaker than the analogous system that I mentioned (PhenonX3 + HD3750) then it certainly bodes well for that PC being able to play the game just fine on it's lowest (console equivilent) settings.

Well my point was, and maybe it wasn't clear enough so here we go again.
As developers get better at utilizing the hardware in the consoles (going for the metal) i would theorize that the needed PC hardware would require more power as times go by. Maybe DX12 is different who knows. But imho it's been like that for years. And the listed Min requirments for a Tomb Raider machine does seem a bit like a PS3 doesn't it. So it would be interesting to see how that game would run on a PC. Ok, it has 3 times as much ram, but who is counting. So what i propose is that the 60FPS machine may be able to deliver 60FPS (in some MP games now) but in 4 years the same MP games wouldn't be ahead by a factor of 2 vs the PS4. Simply because the developers are able to get more out of the PS4 hardware, even though it's PC parts. Yes it's a guess but lets return to this in 4 years..

That would have been a choice, not a requirement. Just like the choice to spend an extra $50-60 and get a 3GB 280 instead and double the PS4's GPU power rather than just besting it by 40%. As it's not a requirement for the system under discussion though it's not a price we need to add.

You suggested it would be needed to make sure that future games that took advantage of the 8GB GDDR5 would still compete on the 60FPS machine.

Okay so now we're back to the multiple consoles argument are we? In order to play both XB1 and PS4 exclusives next generation you need to spend $900 on hardware. Well in excess of the PC's cost. You can't have it both ways, you either miss out on lots of exclusives or you buy more hardware. And previously owned last gen hardware doesn't count as we already established. Lest we start talking about previously owned PC hardware as well (not to mention any PC gamers will also have a previous gen console as well).

Wow, -SNIP-. I'm heart broken

I think you missed my point here, and to be honest i wonder why i should make it again.
The Consoles have the best games, MP titles and Exclusives.

The PC has it's exclusives, and i asked you to point them out. A list of everything hardly matters. And who says they don't appeal to me? I don't care i am not the one that matters in this. What's important is that PC exclusives sell like crap compared to the Console exclusives. Of course a console owner will miss 101 Dalmatians: Escape from DeVil Manor.

What does market share have to do with their existance?

Everything?

So you have evidence that in this age of increasing development costs, more standardisation on big 3rd party engines and much greater hardware similarity between the big consoles and PC that the platform specific exclusives will be just as prevalent as last generation? And you ignored by 3rd question anyway. Even if you do have every one of those games, does the average PS4 gamer? Or is it more realistic that within their game collection then may own half a dozen of them or so?

I don't have evidence, but i expect it to be the case, yeah. 3rd question?

Maybe I'm just just better at maintaining my PC than most. If your PC exceeds the minimum specs, is running reasonably decent drivers and isn't chock full of porn and other rubbish then there's little reason these days why a PC game should failt or either install or run first time. Sure there will always be exceptional game breaking issues and I've encountered one or two in the past but consoles are hardly immune to that kind of thing either **BF4 for example**

I think you already established how exceptional good you are at maintaining your PC, i am a complete n00b on the other hand. And so is everyone else that can't get a game to run. Which btw is one of the reasons why the Consoles deliver the superior experience, insert game, play and avoid the arrogant message boards when you need to get a game working . And i know about BF4, it also hard crashes for me.. on my PC the only game i have that BSOD's. But as you know that is my fault

Why? I can start a game just as easily if not more so on my PC than on a console. So why is it objectively better? Is it more intuitive for people without PC knowledge? Yes undoubtably. Is it more restrictive in terms of customisation? Yes undoubtably. Can it actually be less efficient than a well configured PC interace? Yes it sure as hell can.

I go by my kids (and i guess you are about to take a shot at them to, they are dumb as well i guess) but it's exceptionally easier to teach them how to start a game on the PS3/PS4/360 than it is on the PC..
They use the PC, but when i observe them, the UI on the consoles are simply more intuitive for them.

So no, it's not objectively better, just easier to use. Each has pro's and cons and discussing them is beyond the scope of this topic.

Easier = Better in this case, but again that is just me.

 

[eastmen]

I'm not sure what the point is. Why are we chasing mediocrity ?

$200 usd i5 4570 3.2ghz
$80 8 gigs ddr 3 1600 from crucial
$50 corsair 600w power supply
$80 asus lg1150 board

$600 radeon r9 290 4gb card

throw in another $100 for case /key board / mouse and your at $1,100 usd for a machine that will play at 4k resolution or completely blow away the ps4.

oh and it can mine for litecoins pretty well too so you'd be able to make back money you've spent.

Unlike the ps4/xbox one its also upgradable so when the time comes you can upgrade your video card or ram and enjoy newer games at ever increasing resolutions. With the current consoles your stuck at maybe 1080p or less for the next half a decade or more.


Later this year when we see the first 22nm cards from amd NVidia hit the price points will be even more loop sided against these consoles. R290x performance will drop further down from the original $550 and we will see mid range cards with similar performance

 

[pjbliverpool]

Of course Blu-Ray playback isn't part of the gaming experience, but it's part of the package you buy when you get a console, and it's part of the price that makes up the console. And since you can't take it away and get something cheaper i think it's only fair to expect the PC to show up with the same function. Imho of course.

Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. In a direct comparison of the two machines as gaming devices. you think the PC should be held to the standard of meeting all the consoles non gaming functions but the console should not be held to the same standard in relation to the PC. And this is the only way you see the comparison as fair and valid. Kinda bizarre IMO but we'll leave it there.

One the awesome functions with my PS3 was the ability to use standard Blu-Tooth headset, and unless you buy one that specifical has an adapter it's not included. Most of the sets i have bought did not include one.

I'm gonna go ahead and wager that's because you didn't need a set with an adapter because the PS3 already has it built in. It's not like headsets with adapters aren't readily and easily available. The choice I have is to either buy a $4 adapter now with nothing to make use of it or wait until (and if) I buy a peripheral that makes use of it and choose one with it's own adapter. Either way, to be comparable to a console the PC does not require the adapter out of the box since there's no out of the box functionality that the console offers which makes use of Blu-tooth (which does not require you to spend more money on a separate component. Now can we stop quibbling over minutiae? It's $4 for god sake, it basically has no baring on the purchase decision.

Nope, but that is not the reason i want them included, and see above

So again, it's one standard applied to the console (whatever functionality it meets, that's great, whatever it doesn't, we ignore and pretend it doesn't matter), and another standard applied to the PC where it must meet every single checkpoint item of the consoles functionality regardless of how applicable it is to the PC's function as a games machine or not.

As I said above, a bizarre basis on which to form a comparison IMO so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am my own best source! It's my opinion, that's it. The article hints at other advantages with the open PC platform, but as i said it's very hard to take a function away from the Console so i would expect the PC to match.

Great, so you don't like the conclusions that the article comes to so rather than accept them you apply completely new, and utterly one sided requirements of your own that have nothing to do with the original point of the article in an attempt to claim the conclusions of the article wrong. Glad we understand each other.

So there is actually no reason why it shouldn't be possible to get a PC built and installed, so why not use that as a base?

Because the article was based on a complete self build rather than upgrading a pre-existing base unit? And for people who are comfortable building their own PC's it's a valid and possibly more rewarding experience than simply buying an off the shelf desktop and upgrading it? Regardless of the reason this clearly proves that the "requirement" to add a construction charge to the PC is unnecessary.

Everything you said above goes for the PC as well, the difference is that the console doesn't come in parts without a OS installed.

Except we've just proven above that neither does the PC have to. And for people who are comfortable building their own PC's (which is who this article is aimed at anyway) this is a none issue in the first place. Therefore your stipulation that a build cost must be applied to this PC regardless of circumstances has been proven false.

Well my point was, and maybe it wasn't clear enough so here we go again.
As developers get better at utilizing the hardware in the consoles (going for the metal) i would theorize that the needed PC hardware would require more power as times go by. Maybe DX12 is different who knows. But imho it's been like that for years. And the listed Min requirments for a Tomb Raider machine does seem a bit like a PS3 doesn't it. So it would be interesting to see how that game would run on a PC. Ok, it has 3 times as much ram, but who is counting. So what i propose is that the 60FPS machine may be able to deliver 60FPS (in some MP games now) but in 4 years the same MP games wouldn't be ahead by a factor of 2 vs the PS4. Simply because the developers are able to get more out of the PS4 hardware, even though it's PC parts. Yes it's a guess but lets return to this in 4 years..

I think it's reasonable to assume that as consoles are better utilized then yes, it will take more power from a PC GPU to match that performance where those same low level optimisations haven't been implemented and instead have to be implemented through a more generalized path.

It's the extent of that effect on which we disagree. Your earlier posts were stating as fact that the 760 will not be able to keep up with consoles in the future. I think that's far from a foregone conclusion given the upcoming introduction of DX12 and the greater similarity on hardware architectures than ever before. Yes the 1080p/60fps requirement may not hold for every game in 3-4 years (it doesn't now so that kinda goes without saying), but I don't see any conclusive evidence to suggest the PC will be unable to at least match or slightly exceed the console experience in that time (on balance at least even if not on a perfect feature for feature basis).

You suggested it would be needed to make sure that future games that took advantage of the 8GB GDDR5 would still compete on the 60FPS machine.

It depends what your requirements are. I do agree that a 2GB GPU may have to compromise in the future on settings like texture resolution. But then it may be able to simultaneously ramp up other settings, resolution or frame rate (or a combination of all 3). If your happy with that occasional compromise then you don't need to spend the extra. On the other hand, it's $10 (on newegg) so go ahead and throw it in there.

I think you missed my point here, and to be honest i wonder why i should make it again.

The Consoles have the best games, MP titles and Exclusives.

The PC has it's exclusives, and i asked you to point them out. A list of everything hardly matters. And who says they don't appeal to me? I don't care i am not the one that matters in this. What's important is that PC exclusives sell like crap compared to the Console exclusives. Of course a console owner will miss 101 Dalmatians: Escape from DeVil Manor.

I've not missed any point. You've claimed that to miss out on exclusives is an unacceptable situation and I've just pointed out that unless your comparing the PC to multiple consoles (which throws the cost comparison argument out of the window) then you are also missing out on 2/3rds of the current generation exclusive games.

And that's without even considering all of the last generation console games that you can't play on that new console which are available on PC. How would you stack up a dozen AAA PS4 exclusives to a couple hundred AAA multiplatform games from last generation? Most at 1080p/60fps for the record.

And no, you can't say "but I already have a PS3" because not everyone does, and for every one person that does, there's likely a PC owner that only needs a GPU upgrade rather than a whole new PC to bring their PC up to console standards.

Everything?

So a game doesn't exist unless it has a certain level of market share.... okay...

Or perhaps you're equating quality with market share? So I guess Candy Crush Saga blows away all PS4 games to date then?

I don't have evidence, but i expect it to be the case, yeah. 3rd question?

3rd question = do all PS3 owners own all PS3 exclusives? Or rather, do they own half a dozen or so? My point being, by not owning a PS3 I didn't miss out on 30 or 40 exclusives like you're making out, I missed out on the half dozen I might have bought. For me personally, it wouldn't have been that many (2 or 3 I think) but on average I doubt its more than half a dozen or so.

I think you already established how exceptional good you are at maintaining your PC, i am a complete n00b on the other hand. And so is everyone else that can't get a game to run. Which btw is one of the reasons why the Consoles deliver the superior experience, insert game, play and avoid the arrogant message boards when you need to get a game working . And i know about BF4, it also hard crashes for me.. on my PC the only game i have that BSOD's. But as you know that is my fault

As I said, there will always be exceptional issues. But 95%+ of the time the "insert game, install and play" sequence works perfectly on the PC too (assuming it meets the specs, has reasonably recent drivers installed, and is maintained to a decent standard). Your descriptions make out as though there is no such thing as a smooth installation and game starting experience on the PC and every installation/game start is riddled with issues and frustrations. Which is patently untrue.

I go by my kids (and i guess you are about to take a shot at them to, they are dumb as well i guess) but it's exceptionally easier to teach them how to start a game on the PS3/PS4/360 than it is on the PC..
They use the PC, but when i observe them, the UI on the consoles are simply more intuitive for them.

I already agreed the console experience is more intuitive so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the example above. My argument is that less restrictive but more intuituve (i.e. the Apple experience) is not necessarily better than more configurable but less intuitive (i.e. the Android experience).

And for the record, if you've pre-installed the game and put an icon on the desktop, where exactly is the difficulty in starting the game from that?

Easier = Better in this case, but again that is just me.

If it's just you then Easier /= Better. Easier = Your Preference. More configurable = My Preference and neither = objectively better.

It also depends on how you define easier. Installation and settings configuration on the PC are indeed slightly more "difficult" on the PC, but once the game is installed I'd say it's significantly easier for me to press a button the keyboard to wake the PC and then double click the game icon on the desktop than it is to power up the console, log in and then navigate the UI menus' until I get to the game I want. And that's assuming you don't need the correct disk in the drive in the first place (which I think they've done away with on the current generation?).

 

[-tkf-]

Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Absolutely, i think your a cool fellow and even though you seem a bit tense there is no reason for us to get all bitter about this. Maybe i can make it a bit more clear (because i can understand your objections).
As i see it, when i buy a console, even if i will never use the Blu-Ray support, the included services like vidzone, party chat, blu-tooth etc i simply can't de-select them. They are in the package, i pay for them no matter what. If i were to replace my Console with a PC i would expect all of these things to be included because i use them. I can understand the argument that Joe PC might not wonna use them, and would never need a controller (beats me why he would want a better looking but worse playing PC). But imho (and you disagree) it's not fair to cherry pick on the PC side when you skip basic features that the console has.

I'm gonna go ahead and wager that's because you didn't need a set with an adapter because the PS3 already has it built in.

Nope, i have bought 3 Blu-Tooth headsets, and not a single one came with a adapter. I use them with my Mobile Phone, and they just happen to work with the PS3 as well.

Regardless of the reason this clearly proves that the "requirement" to add a construction charge to the PC is unnecessary.

Yes it does.

Except we've just proven above that neither does the PC have to. And for people who are comfortable building their own PC's (which is who this article is aimed at anyway) this is a none issue in the first place. Therefore your stipulation that a build cost must be applied to this PC regardless of circumstances has been proven false.

Nope it is not false, your time may be free, you may do it for someone else for free, but there is a cost in building a PC. And unless someone does it for you for free the cost is added somewhere. The machine you linked would be cheaper if it came in parts.

I think it's reasonable to assume that as consoles are better utilized then yes, it will take more power from a PC GPU to match that performance where those same low level optimisations haven't been implemented and instead have to be implemented through a more generalized path.

It's the extent of that effect on which we disagree. Your earlier posts were stating as fact that the 760 will not be able to keep up with consoles in the future. I think that's far from a foregone conclusion given the upcoming introduction of DX12 and the greater similarity on hardware architectures than ever before. Yes the 1080p/60fps requirement may not hold for every game in 3-4 years (it doesn't now so that kinda goes without saying), but I don't see any conclusive evidence to suggest the PC will be unable to at least match or slightly exceed the console experience in that time (on balance at least even if not on a perfect feature for feature basis).

It wasn't fact, i find it likely, and i find it very likely with the PS4 because of the enormous amount of GDDR5

I've not missed any point. You've claimed that to miss out on exclusives is an unacceptable situation and I've just pointed out that unless your comparing the PC to multiple consoles (which throws the cost comparison argument out of the window) then you are also missing out on 2/3rds of the current generation exclusive games.

I am not sure i said it was an unacceptable situation, for it's a matter of choice, i want it all. But i am pretty sure that the average joe that wants to play all the big AAA titles will be better of with a PS4 than a PC. He will have the console with most horse power for those Console Bugetted AAA MP titles, and he will enjoy many years of exclusive AAA titles.

How would you stack up a dozen AAA PS4 exclusives to a couple hundred AAA multiplatform games from last generation? Most at 1080p/60fps for the record.

Since i am not allowed to say that it's very likely the gamer has a PS3/360 or even a PC, then i would suggest that he is so new to gaming that he should buy a PS3 and enjoy a bucketload of the best games. Why play on something that doesn't let you play Red Dead Redemption? or GTA5?

And no, you can't say "but I already have a PS3" because not everyone does, and for every one person that does, there's likely a PC owner that only needs a GPU upgrade rather than a whole new PC to bring their PC up to console standards.

But he already has a PS3 or a 360! There i said it

So a game doesn't exist unless it has a certain level of market share.... okay...

Nope not in the sense that it's something people (except the small number of nerds) would pick a console for. I would recommend my friends to get a PS3 just to experience GTA5.

So I guess Candy Crush Saga blows away all PS4 games to date then?

I would not recommend anyone getting a smart phone to play that game, i don't know of anyone that would.

, I missed out on the half dozen I might have bought.

And that is a your loss, or just taste i guess.

As I said, there will always be exceptional issues. But 95%+ of the time the "insert game, install and play" sequence works perfectly on the PC too (assuming it meets the specs, has reasonably recent drivers installed, and is maintained to a decent standard). Your descriptions make out as though there is no such thing as a smooth installation and game starting experience on the PC and every installation/game start is riddled with issues and frustrations. Which is patently untrue.

It's just an example of how shaky the PC platform is, i have played on the PC since forever, and i have litterally 30 years experience with the Platform. And with that i also have plenty of experience from friends, family etc to be able to say that it's NOT unheard of that a game will give your problems. Some might be small, some might be big and some is simply game breakers.

I will ask again, what PC exclusives am i missing out on, i would prefer AAA titles, but your free to add your own preference.

 

[pjbliverpool]

As i see it, when i buy a console, even if i will never use the Blu-Ray support, the included services like vidzone, party chat, blu-tooth etc i simply can't de-select them. They are in the package, i pay for them no matter what. If i were to replace my Console with a PC i would expect all of these things to be included because i use them. I can understand the argument that Joe PC might not wonna use them, and would never need a controller (beats me why he would want a better looking but worse playing PC). But imho (and you disagree) it's not fair to cherry pick on the PC side when you skip basic features that the console has.

But why are you only looking at it from the point of view of replacing the console with a PC? The article never stipulated that. This is rather a choice between two platforms, each of which has a functionality set that is slightely different from the other. One platform may offer Blu-Ray playback while the other doubles as workstation (to pick one example). But I see no reasonable motivation for saying one platform must be held to strict functionality standards while the other is not required to meet those same standards and then call it a fair test.

Nope, i have bought 3 Blu-Tooth headsets, and not a single one came with a adapter. I use them with my Mobile Phone, and they just happen to work with the PS3 as well.

But the fact remains that headsets with bundled dongles are readibly available and so not having pre-existing Blu-tooth capability when you have no peripherals to make use of it is not a tangible disadvantage. But as I said, it's a trivial cost so I'm happy to include it in the overall PC cost just to meet your checklist requirements. What I'm not happy about is that no value is attributed to the PC's extra functionality while you feel it valid to apply attribute additional value to the consoles extra functions.

Yes it does.

Nope it is not false, your time may be free, you may do it for someone else for free, but there is a cost in building a PC. And unless someone does it for you for free the cost is added somewhere. The machine you linked would be cheaper if it came in parts.

Your two answers seem to contradict each there there. But nevertheless, to anyone wishing to build the system themselves, or who knows someone who will build the system for them for free, a contruction charge is not required. Therefore, by definition you cannot universally say a construction charge needs to be added to this PC. What if I were to base my argument on this PC only being available to a niche segment of the market who are capable of building their own PC's? That in no way invalidates the original question of "is it possible to build a £500 PC that can exceed console gaing performance", it merely reduces the segment of the population that the question is applicable to. Nevertheless, the question is still completely valid and in this scenario, a build charge would never be included.

And there is no guarantee at all that the linked PC would be cheaper if it came in parts because bulk buying discounts will apply to systems like this - that's why companies can afford to sell them cheaper than you can find the components individually.

Bottom line is that you can get a system for about ~£500 with the same level of gaming performance as the DF article whether or not you pay someone to build it for you.

It wasn't fact, i find it likely, and i find it very likely with the PS4 because of the enormous amount of GDDR5

Why would the PS4 be any different to the XB1 in that regard? They both have the same amount of memory. And besides, if we going with the 4GB 760 as stipulated in the previous post at the tiny cost premium then the 8GB advantage would be negated. That said though, even if you did have to reduce texture quality to fit within a consoles 2GB framebuffer, that doesn't mean the game on balance still wouldn't offer the superior experience on the PC. It depends on the impact of those reduced textures versus what may be improved such as framerate, resolution and other graphics settings.

I am not sure i said it was an unacceptable situation, for it's a matter of choice, i want it all.

But you can't have it all. With only 1 current gen console you miss out on the exclusives ot 2 out of 3 current gen consoles and ALL games (exclusive or MP) on all previous generation consoles.

But i am pretty sure that the average joe that wants to play all the big AAA titles will be better of with a PS4 than a PC. He will have the console with most horse power for those Console Bugetted AAA MP titles, and he will enjoy many years of exclusive AAA titles.

But he'll miss out every multi platform game form the previous generation where the PC gamer will not. And regardless of whether he's getting the best console experience in current generation MP games, he'd still be getting the second rate experience overall in comparison to the PC version. And on top of all that, he still has to sit by and watch gamers on other platforms play games he'll never have access to (without spending more money).

Since i am not allowed to say that it's very likely the gamer has a PS3/360 or even a PC, then i would suggest that he is so new to gaming that he should buy a PS3 and enjoy a bucketload of the best games. Why play on something that doesn't let you play Red Dead Redemption? or GTA5?

GTA5 will be available on PC soon enough. But that's another subject. When comparing the relative merits of 2 systems you can't bring a third system into the mix and then claim system 1 + new system 3 is now better than system 2. Or rather, if you do then it's equally valid to apply the same logic in reverse. i.e. the PC gamer is equally free to buy a PS3. They now have access to all of those same exclusives at no additional cost expenditure to the PS4 gamer. So where does the comparison stand now? The percentage cost difference between the two solutions has been significnatly reduced, the PC gamer has access to all the same PS3 exclusives as the PS4 gamer, the PS4 gamer has access to many (not all) of the previous gen games that the PC gamer has but at a much lower quality and the PC gamer is still missing out on a handful of PS4 exclusives in exchange for getting a better experience in the far more numerous - but both are missing out on all the XB1 and WiiU exclusives.

See why adding new consoled into a 2 system comparison doesn't work?

But he already has a PS3 or a 360! There i said it

Fair enough. And the PC gamer already had a PC with a 2500K, 16GB RAM and GTX680 (basically mys system as an example). Therefore in the choice between PC gaming or buying a PS4, the PS4 costs £350 and the PC is free. I know which is the better value proposition to me.

Nope not in the sense that it's something people (except the small number of nerds) would pick a console for. I would recommend my friends to get a PS3 just to experience GTA5.

The problem with equating game quality/worthiness with sales is that the logic falls apart as soon as it's examined. Take the new South Park game for example. Far better on the PC than last gen consoles of course and yet sales figures miniscule in comparison. By your logic, that would make it a much worse game. Which it clearly isn't.

I would not recommend anyone getting a smart phone to play that game, i don't know of anyone that would.

So you argue that higher sales/playtime = superior game and then you flat out dismiss your own argument when if comes to a game that you don't personally enjoy and isn't on your preferred platform?

And that is a your loss, or just taste i guess.

Yep, it's a loss I didn't notice because I already have a list of awesome AAA games as long as my arm waiting to be played that I don't have time to. What would it serve to make that list longer?

And of course, you (or our hypothetical PS4 gamer to avoid prior system ownership issues) is still missing out on all the exclusives from the other current generation consoles + all the MP games from last generation.

It's just an example of how shaky the PC platform is, i have played on the PC since forever, and i have litterally 30 years experience with the Platform. And with that i also have plenty of experience from friends, family etc to be able to say that it's NOT unheard of that a game will give your problems. Some might be small, some might be big and some is simply game breakers.

It's an exaggeration and if you really are a long time PC gamer you know that to be true. The vast majority of PC gaming issues are caused through a lack of knowledge of the platform. I'm not saying PC gaming is as easy as console gaming, of course it isn't, it takes a much greater level of (PC specific) knowledge to enjoy. But as long as you have that knowledge, it will be 95%+ problem free. On the other hand if you try to play games on systems that don't meet the minimum spec, you use out of date drivers or you poorley maintain the system in general (no AV software for example) then yes, you'll run into issues much more regularly. That's not a general platfor issue though, it's user error.

I will ask again, what PC exclusives am i missing out on, i would prefer AAA titles, but your free to add your own preference.

I already posted a link to dozens of titles. You may want to try re-reading my previous responses. However since you asked nicely, here's some specifcally for 2014.

http://gamingbolt.com/top-pc-exclusive-games-for-2014

Not included on this list is of course TitanFall which while not exclusive to the PC, it's a game not available on the PS4 which is available on the PC and thus one that the person who chose the PS4 over the PC would be missing out on. It probably won't be the last.

 

[KOF]

I built my last PC around the time PS4 was out. It had been 11 years before upgraded. I was supposed to pay about $415 total, but those bastards never sent me money I was supposed to get from MIB. Anyways, my price applies supposed 'MIB' price cut.

Asrock Z87 Pro3 = $75
Intel Pentium G3220 = $70
(case + PSU) Coolermaster C+P 250 = $35
ADATA 2gig RAM = $20 (used)
HP wireless keyboard & mouse = $15
Crucial M4 128gb SSD = $70 (refurbished)
Geforce 650 Ti Boost 2gig = $130

My rather ambitionless build already cost over the PS4. I'm still not done with my build though. I use my headphone through Dolby Headphone enabled Harman Kardon receiver and I need to pay extra for my PC if I want to use Dolby Headphone on my PC as well. Either Sound Blaster Titanium HD or Asus Xonar would fit the bill. I don't like the Sound Blaster because of their crappy resampling and I don't really like Xonar because of framedrops when using DDL. Overall, happy with the performance but certainly nowhere near the PS4 and still won't replace my 360 as my main gaming platform because of added input lag.

 

[Daozang]

All the exclusive talk has nothing to do with this thread.
Especially from a cost perspective.
Like pjbliverpool already said, you'll either have to buy every console and add that cost into your comparison, or not mention it at all.

As for the "steam troubleshooting threads" comment, it's anecdotal evidence at best.
We actually have no clue as to what percentage of gamers had trouble running a game and cannot base our conclusions on a vocal minority that couldn't run the aforementioned game.
It's the same argument as saying that consoles suck, because I had mine in crammed space with no ventilation, and it froze on me when I was playing game x.

My guess is, that performance equivalent PCs will be a lot cheaper than consoles in significantly less time than it took them to get there in previous generations.

 

[function]

My thinking:

- I'll need a decent PC with a recent OS regardless of games. That will cost a certain amount.
- Add to that the cost of a console.

That is my "console equivalent" PC build. And I built it more than three years ago.

My overlocked 560 Ti is just about hanging with the PS4. My 2500K can beat the current consoles with half it's cores disabled.

Of course, the costs will go out of balance once I buy Kinect 2 for PC. Still no release date for that though.

 

[pjbliverpool]

My rather ambitionless build already cost over the PS4.

I don't think anyones trying o claim you can atch the PS4's performance at the same price point. You certainly can't (with a brand newbuild). Sny definitely offers superb value in that regard (as does MS for that matter when you account for Kinect).

That said, your system should offer an experience similar to the XB1. Aside from lacking a bit of memory bandwidth compared to the X1's esram it's actually a fair bit more powerful on paper (not quite PS4 level in all respects but close enough to give a comparable experience.

I'm still not done with my build though. I use my headphone through Dolby Headphone enabled Harman Kardon receiver and I need to pay extra for my PC if I want to use Dolby Headphone on my PC as well. Either Sound Blaster Titanium HD or Asus Xonar would fit the bill. I don't like the Sound Blaster because of their crappy resampling and I don't really like Xonar because of framedrops when using DDL.

Does you're reciever have an HDMI input? If so and your GPU also has an HDMI output I understand you can output a DD encoded stream from onboard audio without requiring a seperate sound card.

still won't replace my 360 as my main gaming platform because of added input lag.

Input lag? I'm not sure what you mean by this. There is no additional input lag related to a PC as compared to a console. In fact compared with an Xbox 360, the latency between command inputs and displayed output on the screen (especially if you use a monitor rather than a TV) will be much smaller with the PC.

 

[-tkf-]

But why are you only looking at it from the point of view of replacing the console with a PC? The article never stipulated that. This is rather a choice between two platforms, each of which has a functionality set that is slightely different from the other. One platform may offer Blu-Ray playback while the other doubles as workstation (to pick one example). But I see no reasonable motivation for saying one platform must be held to strict functionality standards while the other is not required to meet those same standards and then call it a fair test.

Who said anything about fair? The advantages for a PC is so big that it's not really a contest, if you don't have a PC you would be borderline insane not to buy one and go for a console instead. This imho is a made up case, i know no one that would go for such a weak PC if they wanted to actually use the PC as their main gaming machine. It's a experiment on how much you have to pay get on par with a console, and that includes a CONTROLLER and BLURAY playback. Now frankly i don't really care what you think so lets keep it at the agree to disagree (i understand your viewpoint i just don't agree).

But the fact remains that headsets with bundled dongles are readibly available and so not having pre-existing Blu-tooth capability when you have no peripherals to make use of it is not a tangible disadvantage. But as I said, it's a trivial cost so I'm happy to include it in the overall PC cost just to meet your checklist requirements. What I'm not happy about is that no value is attributed to the PC's extra functionality while you feel it valid to apply attribute additional value to the consoles extra functions./QUOTE] Agree to disagree

Your two answers seem to contradict each there there. But nevertheless, to anyone wishing to build the system themselves, or who knows someone who will build the system for them for free, a contruction charge is not required. Therefore, by definition you cannot universally say a construction charge needs to be added to this PC. What if I were to base my argument on this PC only being available to a niche segment of the market who are capable of building their own PC's? That in no way invalidates the original question of "is it possible to build a £500 PC that can exceed console gaing performance", it merely reduces the segment of the population that the question is applicable to. Nevertheless, the question is still completely valid and in this scenario, a build charge would never be included.

Agree to disagree.

And there is no guarantee at all that the linked PC would be cheaper if it came in parts because bulk buying discounts will apply to systems like this - that's why companies can afford to sell them cheaper than you can find the components individually.

This is not always the case, but useless for this discussion.

Bottom line is that you can get a system for about ~£500 with the same level of gaming performance as the DF article whether or not you pay someone to build it for you.

I think you proved it, but did you add the wireless, blutooth and controller and the extra tenner for enought ram?

Why would the PS4 be any different to the XB1 in that regard? They both have the same amount of memory. And besides, if we going with the 4GB 760 as stipulated in the previous post at the tiny cost premium then the 8GB advantage would be negated. That said though, even if you did have to reduce texture quality to fit within a consoles 2GB framebuffer, that doesn't mean the game on balance still wouldn't offer the superior experience on the PC. It depends on the impact of those reduced textures versus what may be improved such as framerate, resolution and other graphics settings.

Because the XB1 is handicapped by it's slow ram, i am only guessing here, but at some point we will see games with insane amounts of textures getting thrown around on the PS4.

But you can't have it all. With only 1 current gen console you miss out on the exclusives ot 2 out of 3 current gen consoles and ALL games (exclusive or MP) on all previous generation consoles.

I am having it all actually. Of course i cherry pick my games, but i am not bound to one limited platform that simply doesn't see the best games.

But he'll miss out every multi platform game form the previous generation where the PC gamer will not. And regardless of whether he's getting the best console experience in current generation MP games, he'd still be getting the second rate experience overall in comparison to the PC version. And on top of all that, he still has to sit by and watch gamers on other platforms play games he'll never have access to (without spending more money).

Actually if he has a PS3 he isn't that much when it comes to blockbusters.

GTA5 will be available on PC soon enough.

I hope, but Red Dead Redemption still isn't neither is Last of US and other very good games that easily can compete with the best the PC has to offer.

So where does the comparison stand now?

Thats a good question, if you want to base the argument on PS4 vs a PC then naturally the PS4 has nothing to offer compared to the library of a PC, in 5 years there is . imho, no doubt that the PS4 will have been the better gaming experience compared to the PC. But that it guessing, and that is why i am pointing to the PS3 as an example of just how much better the PS3 gaming offering is.

Fair enough. And the PC gamer already had a PC with a 2500K, 16GB RAM and GTX680 (basically mys system as an example). Therefore in the choice between PC gaming or buying a PS4, the PS4 costs £350 and the PC is free. I know which is the better value proposition to me.

Or he had a crappy laptop that is perfect for Youtube watching and posting lies to Facebook.

The problem with equating game quality/worthiness with sales is that the logic falls apart as soon as it's examined. Take the new South Park game for example. Far better on the PC than last gen consoles of course and yet sales figures miniscule in comparison. By your logic, that would make it a much worse game. Which it clearly isn't.

I am having fun with "Smash hit" on my Phone, but the experience is nothing like GTA5. Blockbuster titles like that and BF4 (how much did it sell on the PC?) is what moves consoles, not niche games that a few people play. I understand the elite view that mass sales doesn't equal quality, i spend money on niche products myself, but i understand that it's not what matters in the grand scheme. A XB1 packaged with South Park would most likely be outsold by the TitanFall pack, right?

So you argue that higher sales/playtime = superior game and then you flat out dismiss your own argument when if comes to a game that you don't personally enjoy and isn't on your preferred platform

Call it cherry picking, i don't know how much money candy saga made, did it match the one billion dollars GTA5 made? It's a crap game and it's hardly what i would call a blockbuster title, and i doubt it would move the PS4 sales if it was included in the package.

Yep, it's a loss I didn't notice because I already have a list of awesome AAA games as long as my arm waiting to be played that I don't have time to. What would it serve to make that list longer

Well your list might be longer but the best games from the PS3 would just move the other games down the list while they took the top

It's an exaggeration and if you really are a long time PC gamer you know that to be true. The vast majority of PC gaming issues are caused through a lack of knowledge of the platform. I'm not saying PC gaming is as easy as console gaming, of course it isn't, it takes a much greater level of (PC specific) knowledge to enjoy. But as long as you have that knowledge, it will be 95%+ problem free. On the other hand if you try to play games on systems that don't meet the minimum spec, you use out of date drivers or you poorley maintain the system in general (no AV software for example) then yes, you'll run into issues much more regularly. That's not a general platfor issue though, it's user error.

It's a fact, it's much better now than it has been, but the user experience is unbelievably crappy, the console is like a oasis in a sea of puke compared to the PC. How many DD services are we up to now?
All with different user interfaces that apparently only has one common goal, not to look and feel like windows UI. And with different approaches to online/offline support, login timeouts and holy fuck.. it's a disaster. There is a real reason why getting a console for games is so attractive. For some like us who are used to the mess it's not readily apparent. But for those that are presented to the mess for the first time it's really hard to understand. Another layer of software on the Nvidia Cards, so besides drivers i now download another software package. And hey another piece of software to customize my game settings.

And that is before the actual games fail, they crash, they wont install, they run like crap, they look like crap, they have to be patched. I acknowledge that many games work just fine out of the box/steam/origin but i would say that it's more a rule than an exception that i have to do "something", it may be small, like fixing a very low res default setting, or reducing AA to get a high enough FPS.
But it still happens that i have to search forums to get the actual game working, in the case of the Lego game, there was no help to be found.

I already posted a link to dozens of titles. You may want to try re-reading my previous responses. However since you asked nicely, here's some specifcally for 2014.

http://gamingbolt.com/top-pc-exclusive-games-for-2014

Interesting list but except for the Blizzard game (which might hit the consoles anyway and is likely a 2016 title) i am not really seeing any Multi Million sellers that will be exclusive to the PC, i would predict the big hits would see the consoles shortly.. because that is where the money is!

What consoles do you own, what console games do you actually play?

 

[-tkf-]

As for the "steam troubleshooting threads" comment, it's anecdotal evidence at best.

I would agree with you if it wasn't for my vast experience on the subject

We actually have no clue as to what percentage of gamers had trouble running a game and cannot base our conclusions on a vocal minority that couldn't run the aforementioned game..

Google shows 170.000.000 hits for my pc games keep crashing
Google shows 550.000.000 hits for my pc game wont start
Google shows 139.000.000 hits for my pc game wont install
Google shows 470.000.000 hits for my pc game wont play

Take a look at the http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/ there is plenty of people asking for help.

It's pretty easy to see why, the PC's strength is the enormous amount of things you can do with it, and that creates just as possible problems

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Google shows 170.000.000 hits for my pc games keep crashing
Google shows 550.000.000 hits for my pc game wont start
Google shows 139.000.000 hits for my pc game wont install
Google shows 470.000.000 hits for my pc game wont play

Utterly useless information. those searches return pages that include those words. So you get this Wikipedia entry on Bioshock appear on page 14 of the search results for the first search.

Search for "my pc games keep crashing" in quotes and you get 12,800 hits.

Does PC crash? Yes. Then again, so do consoles these days (millions of Google results for that too). Is there any way to quantify that and compare the two platforms with Google searches? I don't think so. I can't believe someone even tried!

 

[KKRT]

Nah, i just don't think your argument is very valid, imho and frankly in the real world, the big money for the big games, that millions play aren't invested in the PC. You can be upset, angry and depressed, but that is how the world is. I have gamer laptop, 2 gamer desktops and a HTPC. I have been playing on the PC longer than most, it's my preferred platform for most games. But it's just not the platform with the best games (imho), you have a ton games, more than a normal life has time to play. But when it comes to the games that people want to play and spend time and money on it's not doing very good.

Big money? The biggest money is currently in f2p games and those are on PC.
And the rest of Your post is purely subjective. News flash, not everyone cares about cinematic experiences, not matter how polished or expensive they are. There is nothing wrong with liking them, i like them, i freaking bought Heavy Rain for a full price and played it once!, but those are not games that are better than others.
Just because PC platform does not focus on big budget linear and story driven games, but instead on big scale, innovative or games with a lot of depth in gameplay, doesnt mean that it has, as a platform worse games. Its just Your opinion and You cant state it as a fact.

Ps. I'm gaming for 20 years, i always had gaming PC and owned 5 consoles.

IS the problem here, you and how you think it should be is classic for PC gamers, but that is not how it is..
How did BF4* do, that is a strong PC title, it plays the best on the PC, it's a showcase for the PC.. did it outsell the consoles?

*I bought it on the PC and the Premium package

The problem is that You state Your opinion as a fact, but it is not, as i and many other people like me prove.
Unless You provide accurate data that tell people like me are in extreme minority in the whole gaming userbase, You cant state this as a fact.

And about BF 4, it sold a ton on PC, but we dont have data, but PC has the most active players in EU and NA prime times though.