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).
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.
I think you proved it, but did you add the wireless, blutooth and controller and the extra tenner for enought ram?
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.
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 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.
Actually if he has a PS3 he isn't that much when it comes to blockbusters.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 he had a crappy laptop that is perfect for Youtube watching and posting lies to Facebook.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
In your opinion sure. That doesn't make it a fact so please stop stating it as though it is one.
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.
No, that's an opinion, you do seem to have difficulty separating these two concepts don't you.[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
What consoles do you own, what console games do you actually play?
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.
