If this was the Titan V owners thread, maybe you'd have a point.
It's a thread called "GPU prices go boom". A thread where people (not exclusively myself) are saying that PC gaming cannot sustain the current prices of hardware, and it will turn many to console gaming.
You say there's no problem; we disagree. This is our thread, not the thread where people get on a "roll of honour" for having spent £2500 on a GPU.
OcUK isn't just a forum for big-spenders, no matter how much you might think it is.
This seems so contrary. In one breath you're saying that his point isn't valid because it's not applicable to the discussion, and in the next your acknowledging that the thread evolves with the discussion, and topics move on.
By your initial logic why on earth are you discussing consoles, OP and reply certainly didn't.
Other than your last post you raise some interesting points, but if you feel we're deflecting the topic, I'm happy to leave it. I don't think we are, so I'll pop my responses below and leave it up to you. Your tone is still pretty condescending, but it's hard to read intent on the internet. I will note that you've been relatively civil with me until now, but have ignored the comments I made regarding decorum.
Then you clearly didn't read my posts of literally one or two pages ago.
You originally said one or two posts ago, not pages, so I'm afraid we're not singing of the same hymn sheet here. If you're willing to quote your post that'd be great, but I certainly wouldn't want to misinterpret which comments you are referring to again.
For anyone posting here - and likely the vast majority of people interested in gaming at all - we will have a PC of some description already.
Whether that's an off-the-shelf Dell basic office model or a gaming PC that's now getting a bit long in the tooth.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of people on this forum aren't running off-the-shelf Dell basic office models. So I'm going to be presumptous and instead look at the latter category. My rig is several years old, I now have a single 980, the second of which I sold and made very little loss on. I would argue that my 980 provides a significantly better experience than the PS4 pro, I bought my second reference one for £200. There is a superclocked version available for £270 on the bay, on the first page, even in this current climate. For people with particularly weak graphics cards, this would seem like a sensible upgrade path, at half the cost of a plastation 4 pro. And then of course there's the 4K television to go with new consoles, many don't have one, including me. Quite a cost you could include there, if you were so inclined.
It's all very well saying "ah but a PC does more than gaming". But ask yourself this:
How many people are choosing between their very first /only PC and a console? It's not a choice many are likely to be making. If you need a PC you better get a PC (for productivity).
On here; not many. The long in the tooth scenario is far more likely for the majority of people in this sub-forum. As I've already stated, I completely understand the position of those either without a machine, or with one so old it's irrelevant, who don't see the added value in the additional abilities of a PC. I don't understand why you're retreading old ground on points we already agree on. We're discussing enthusiasts level descrete graphics on an ethusiast forum.
I'm afraid I haven't said "ah but a PC does more than gaming". You haven't really acknowledged any of the many particular points I made on the added value of a PC, you're using a vague paraphrasing as if said points are inconsequential. They are not. If you'd like to address them individually, that'd be great. But I cannot see the logic in denying their relevance, or throwing them into a quick catch-all group and ignoring how important they are for many people.
So the choice that we're really making here is:
1. Upgrade my PC to a gaming PC that can play 2017/2018 games at 1080p/60
2. Buy a X1X/ PS4 Pro for gaming
The choice we're really making is "does my current financial position, and the value I place on the flexibility, productivity and power of a PC, justify the additional cost? And what do I need to upgrade in order to give my current computer logevity?"
My processer is 4 generations old, and is still very powerful, 6 generation old processors are still very, very capable. If you have a computer older than that, and you don't want any of the many, many advantages I have listed and you have brushed over, then a PS4 pro or similiar is definitely for you.. We've already confirmed this so why are you flogging a dead horse?
So the question now becomes (and I would assume is valid for the majority of users on this PC enthusiast forum) "considering my computer spec is suitable for gaming, excluding the graphics card, is it worth investing in an entirely new device, with a different eco system, to play games at a poorer performance than I would ideally like?"
The benefits of investing additional money would be :
- No new and seperate device
- No investment necessary in a new ecosystem
- Play your entire game collection, from one device
- Retain the peripherals already owned, without additional expense
- No monthly cost for online gaming services
- An enormous variety of games, ranging back 15 years or more
- Considerably lower costs for game purchases
- Broader variety of suitable genres
- Sofa and Desk gaming without additional lounge space taken up
- Huge range of modifications available
- Xbox and PC exclusives
- Small potential income from mining when idle
There are others but lets leave it there for the moment, feel free to address any point that you don't think adds value to a PC setup over a dedicated console.
I will throw you a bone and say for anyone who has no PC and needs one, a console makes no sense. I don't feel that's what we're discussing here. I think it's deflecting the debate to somewhere it doesn't need to go.
Whilst I'm glad we can agree on another point, I don't need a bone throwing. I've happily commented on points we agree on, I find it odd that you don't seem to be willing to do the same. It feels to me like you're trying to win something, rather than have a discussion.
Are you saying that value for money is purely subjective?
I subscribe to the subjective theory of value, yes. Do you think people would go out and buy things they didn't need if they
didn't perceive them to be equal or greater in worth than that which they were required to pay? GPU prices are high because people perceive them to be worth the cost, if they didn't, they wouldn't buy them and the market would plummet practically overnight. People who
don't perceive the added value a PC brings to be worth the cost? They buy consoles, which we've already agreed on and I've empathised with others on. I keep saying this.
Are you saying that somebody can buy a top-end model and not realise that the VfM sweet-spot is a cheaper card?
A second hand car is better value for money. But people keep buying new cars. Because they attribute the value of a new car over a used one to be greater than the monetary cost.
You're saying that someone buying a 911 cannot appreciate that a family car would be better value for money? So someone buying a top-end device must always feel that it represents the best value for money, for them? That nobody ever bought something knowing that it was a vanity purchase and they were paying a premium to buy top-end?
If said hypothetical 911 owner viewed the value vs cost to be greater on the family car, he would purchase it. Vanity is absolutely a contributing factor to deciding whether or not a car presents value for money. 911 person sees such value in the vanity of the car that he is willing to pay the extra money. The car is also significantly faster and brings greater pleasure when in use, 911 person would undoubtedly see these as contributing to the value of the car, don't you think?
But we're not talking about a flash car, we're talking about two utterly different devices, a personal computer, and a gaming console. One provides more power, flexibility, options and functionality, but costs more. We're discussing people looking to buy graphics cards and if they can perceive value for their money.
Because if we're re-defining value for money like that, then literally whatever you decide to buy is the best value for money for you. That makes the phrase "value for money" utterly meaningless.
Just so long as you see what you're doing, here. You're making a well-established concept (value for money) and saying that means whatever you decide it means.
When we started this discussion, I pointed out two things; one, that for some people the added functionality, power and flexibility of a PC makes it a better value for money proposition vs the one trick pony of a console, and two, that you are being rude and glib. I stand by these two points.
I've linked a couple of pages that summarise my points quite well, I'll include a couple of quotations below :
value for money (VFM)
A utility derived from every purchase or every sum of money spent. Value for money is based not only on the minimum purchase price (economy) but also on the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the purchase.
Utility
Pleasure or satisfaction (value for money) derived by a person from the consumption of a good or service or from being in a particular place, and for the maximization of which all economic actions are motivated. It is the subjective or psychic return which cannot be measured in absolute or objective terms. Goods or services that have utility for one person may not have for another, and what may have utility for a person at a certain time or place may not have it at another.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value-for-money-VFM.html
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utility.html
