Yet another PC vs Console price thread *spawn

I fully agree. Last time I woke my PC up to play a game, I went to Steam, clicked on TR "Play" and it showed me a box "Starting Tomb Raider..". It never started and never gave an error. I killed it and tried starting it over. I then tried to exit Steam, but it never died. So I had to bring up Task Manager and kill Steam. Only after restarting Steam would TR finally start.

Stuff like this really kills my will to play games on my PC. Every time I fire up my PC I get Nvidia nagging me about new driver and new profiles or whatever they call that tool. Steam wants to patch and restart (unless it looks happy and hangs). Origin needs a patch, Uplay needs a patch, Windows needs to patch.

Uhg, Windows is the worst. While I was playing TR the Windows patching system kept taking focus from TR and I would lose gamepad input while the game kept playing, the only indication anything was happening in the background was the sudden appearance of the mouse pointer. I had to alt-tab back to TR to play. It interrupted me every few minutes, but it never really wanted anything. Basically Windows sucks for gaming period.

Does Steam big picture mode solve anything? Nope. Every other game wants to open a pop-up window or Uplay or Origin thus negating BPM.

If it bugs me this much after gaming on a PC for 20 years, what is it going to do to a casual player or kids? It is for enthusiasts only at this point, that is until Steam OS kills Windows as a gaming platform, which can't come soon enough.

 

And what if, my vast experience on the subject is completely different?
We don't need to go there now, do we?

Shifty had me covered me on the rest.

Anyway.
Are we trying to make a PS4 with PC parts, or a pc that can play games as good as a PS4 does?
I'm asking because of the talk about bluray and bluetooth.
If the PS4 had a card reader, should we include that as well?
And now I'm getting more and more confused...
If we did the same with the xbox, should we add to the cost software and hardware that enables us to control our pc with hand gestures, or voice commands?

Maybe we should just focus on one thing those platforms have in common...

 

Yes, but on par with a console as games machine, not as a general consumer device. I see exactly what your saying and I even agree in that if you strictly define the terms of the comparison as "what does it cost to build a PC that can completely replace a console" then you should include all of the consoles functionality.

But that was never the comparison DF tried to make. They asked what would it cost to build a PC that is on par (actually more than on par but who's counting) with a PS4 as a gaming machine.

The only person adding additional criteria to that comparison is yourself. Effectively you're cherry picking which functionality to add to the comparison because it makes the cost comparison more favorable to your position. Either stick to the original criteria (match the consoles gaming capabilities), or add in all additional functionality from both platforms into the equation.

Incidentally, yes I totally agree the cost of a control pad should be included to satisfy DF's original criteria.

Just to be clear, I don't agree £500 is sufficient to completely outmatch the PS4 as a gaming machine because they failed to include the controller. You would need to add extra money for that. Blu-tooth/WiFi we've already discussed and I don't believe are necessary criteria to match a console as a games machine, nevertheless the pre-built machine I found did include both as standard. As for the extra memory, US prices seem to differ significantly in that regard to the UK and it's actually a very brief search found the cheapest 4GB GTX760 to be about a £33 premium. So I'd personally buy a little wiser and get a 4GB 270X instead while saving about £12. That £12 would go towards your controller meaning the total cost for my system would be about £510.

However to go back and answer your question, I didn't say you could get an equivilent/better gaming system for £500. I said you could get the same power gaming machine as the DF PC for £500 even if it comes pre-built.

But this isn't about you and your previous gen consoles or about anyone else with any other platforms. This is a comparison of 2 platforms only which assumes no others are available.

Sure you can say "but I also have a PS3 and XB1" but then the counter to that could be that the PC gamer also has an XB360 and a PS4. Or already had a high end PC before the new consoles launched and thus spend $0 on this generations gaming. Where would it end?

Bottom line in this comparison of two platforms head to head is that if you choose either, you are still missing out on games only available on other platforms. And in sheer numbers(even of AAA games since this includes the previous generation), you lose out much more if you choose the current generation console route.

Yes but if you're including someones last gen PS3 in the equation then you've got to include someone else's high end PC bought during the last gen console cycle and thus the price comparison for current gen gaming becomes $399 for the PS4 vs $0 for the high end PC. I'm going to keep going over that one until it sinks in

Red Dead Redemption and Last of Us isn't available on the PS4 either (GTAV probably will be). So the PS4 gamer is equally missing out on those games (although admittedly Gakai looks set to change that).

But then the PS4 gamer is still missing out on Halo, Gears, Titanfall, Mario, Zelda etc... Question is, does that matter when you've already got hundreds of AAA games to choose from? No matter which way you look at it, as a PS4 only gamer you'll be missing out on tons of exclusives. As a PC gamer you'll be missing out on handful more but getting all the previous generations MP games and all the current generations MP games in better form in return.

Ignoring previous generation, emulated and PC exclusive games then in 5 years both the PS4 and the PC will likely have games library's which are 95% identical (with the vast majority of those looking and playing better on the PC). As for the other 5%, PC will probably have a few exclusive XB1 games that never release on PS4 and PS4 will it's own platform exclusives.

If you consider those exclusives worth the other compromises then that's great, I have no problem with that. Just don't portray it as unequivocally and objectively the better/superior option because it's not. It's a choice with pro's and cons which personal preference will decide is the better match depending on each individuals requirements.

Or the PS4 guys only had a PS2 rather than a PS3. See how that works? You don't get to decide both sides of the equation. One system vs one system. As soon as you introduce a 3rd system to bolster 1 side of the equation you open up all possible options for multiple system combinations.

Will someone who already has a PS3 and cheap laptop be better off getting a PS4 rather than a new build gaming desktop? Maybe so. But will someone with a high end gaming PC be better off paying for a PS4 or sticking with the gaming PC at zero cost?

It's far beyond the scope of this discussion to compare every possible combination of systems against every possible combination of systems so why don't we just try to stick to the original topic. Either that or just assume that both users have every system known to man EXCEPT a desktop PC and a PS4. Then ask what is the better option.

Your talking about big name games driving sales. That has nothing to do with how good the games themselves are. In fact you re-enforce my point perfectly above. Yes, how much did BF4 sell on the PC compared with the consoles? It was less right? So does that mean it's the worst version? Nope, it's actually the best version. So as I said previously sales /= game quality. Just because there may be lots of "PC exclusives" that only sell very small numbers it does not mean those games are in any way less valid or less fun then big name blockbusters that sell millions.

Well yes it is Cheery picking. You specifically said previously that more sales = better game or conversely, fewer sales = worse game/game of no importance/game that can be ignored. I'll wager vastly greater numbers of people are playing Candy Crush Saga today compared to the Last of Us which by your logic makes CCS the better game.

In your opinion sure. That doesn't make it a fact so please stop stating it as though it is one.

No, that's an opinion, you do seem to have difficulty separating these two concepts don't you.[/quote]

This is just another exaggeration. While I do agree that multiple DD services is less convenient than 1 it's hardly an experience destructing situation. How long do you spend starting a game as opposed to playing it? Plus this only even applies if you choose to use all those services. You could be like me and buy all games as physical copies or you could choose to only use Steam for DD (which has the vast marjority of games) and purchase anything else as physical (then manually add it into your steam library so all your games are still accessed from one place).

As I already said, yes it requires a greater level of knowledge to make PC gaming accessible but that doesn't mean the end experience has to be any worse if you know what you're doing.

Obviously you're not that much of a PC gamer if you don't know about it then GF experience is bundles with drivers now. You neither habe to download or install somethign separate. It installs and runs on it's own along with the drivers. All you need to do is open it up and press "optimize" for each of the games you want it to optimize for you.

Incidentally, it also tells you when new drivers are available and installs them for you if you wish - taking away another of your complaints.

If you have to search forums just to change in game quality settings then I'd say that very much falls into the catagory of user error rather than platform issue. Most PC games have zero problems doing this for themselves and if your like me consider it a significant advantage (having those options) over console gaming.

And as I said, GF Experience handles all that for you to give you the optimum mix of quality and frame rate automatically. As for patching, I can't remember the last time I had to manually download and install a patch for a game, that's handled by the games themselves these days - just like it is on consoles.

And as we've discussed above, sales /= game quality or fun. Anyway, you neglected to comment on TitanFall. How many games will that sell and can you play it on the PS4?

I currently own a WiiU and last gen I owned a 360 - bought partially for the exclusives. I played on it a bit for the first year or so then it collected dust for another 3 or 4 years until it eventually went RRoD on me. You know why I didn't play it after those first 12-18 months? Because despite some of the exclusives appealing to me (Halo 3 and Gears 2 specifically), there were also lots of AAA MP games available on the PC that interested me just as much at the time, were much cheaper and ended up giving a more pleasing visual experience. So ultimately, although I originally got the 360 for exclusives, I ended up barely bothering with them because what the PC offered in terms of MP games at the time was more appealing when considered alongside cost and graphics.

Incidentally I had a SNES and N64 when I was younger too but now I can play all of those on the PC via emulation.

 

Will the circle be unbroken?