PC games not possible on console

[BuffetSlayer]

Pc gamers always trying to justify the high costs of their machine by using the lower new launch date game prices against console over a decade to get their money back as an argument.

That is only valid if one actually buys every single game on launch day at full price for 8 years straight.

The reality is that you can't get away from the high costs of a gaming PC but you can get away from the higher initial costs of a console game by buying it a few weeks later. That's a choice right there. A choice that you can take to get cheaper games.

I think I paid only £35 for GTA5 anyway, there was a £10 voucher from from hot UK deals. There's always some kind of deal, very rarely I pay £45 for a game. That's also another reality.

In conclusion, I think one can just drop the game prices as an argument altogether, everyone buy different number of games and some people sell, trade, some don't. So you can't apply 1 person's numbers to everyone else and say that's right. Using only the constant and known factors. A console is and will always be cheaper.

And a hell lot easier to maintain.

I agree for many people it is still cheaper to game on console, but that is not to say they could not equally be gaming on a decent PC for the same money, or a little bit more. People think PC gaming is for the rich elite geeks and out of reach of most people - it isn't, not in my opinion, but consoles make it easier to get on the gaming ladder because of the cheaper initial outlay. But with places like OCUK offering interest free credit for a year and with many credit cards offering interest free deals, it helps to spread the cost of the initial hit and make a PC more affordable. My PC cost £2400, but I don't have that kind of cash lying around. I financed my purchase on interest free and saved the cash over a year to pay it off before I had to make any repayments (I also used money from selling my old PC as well as some other bits and bobs too).

Plus my PC does word processing, image and video editing, streaming, media so on and so forth. Granted consoles are getting better in that regard but I bet most console gamers also buy a laptop or tablet (or both) to fully service their needs. I know for a fact that if I didn't already have a PC I would buy a laptop because the PS4 simply sucks for web browsing, you cant use a keyboard for emails, you cant create documents etc etc. That is fine, it isn't designed for that - but now you need to go and get a laptop. Whats that, another £300-£400 for a half decent one?

Suddenly you are spending £600-£700 to be able to do what you want to do which would buy a respectable gaming PC that does it all.

But horses for courses. As long as people are having fun gaming that's what really matters. I just object to the portrayal of PC gaming as excessively expensive compared to console gaming. I object to the PC master race meme, and I believe over the life of a gaming PC, the costs weigh out relatively evenly compared to console gaming if you box clever.

 

[ADP]

Costs aren't important and don't need to be justified.

If you have the money and want the best possible gaming experience then you buy a PC.

Much higher resolutions
Much higher framerates
Better visuals and effects
Multiple controller options
Multiple monitor setups
Ability to upgrade and not be locked down

On top of that it can be used for office based related work, a complete media center, stream videos, games etc...

Has the biggest catalogue of games and the best indie games.

It's a complete package and cheaper games are just a bonus.

If you want a more simple and cheaper approach to gaming then you buy a console, I'm sure everyone is happy with either choice.

Exactly, no one should have to justify the costs of any purchase, If we see someone driving a Ferrari, they shouldn't have to justify why they drive one. If they can afford one, good on them.

 

[Fr0dders]

The truth is whatever savings you get from pre-owned games on console, PC users get more in low prices in Steam sales, game key websites and so on. If you want to go like for like, you might pay £15-£20 for a used PS4 game. I can get the same game in a steam sale for £5, so the costs of games are all relative.

I have spent £384 on PC games since November 2011. It has bought me 40 titles, remembering that is only about 3.5 years so I am bang on target for 80 titles in 8 yrs as per my 'BS' example.

By comparison I have spent £364 on PS4 games/PS+ etc since December 2014 and it has bought me 15 titles - every one 2nd hand by the way. I agree I could trade them in, but I don't. I like to keep what I have bought, but I accept for others it is different. But even if I did trade them in, am I going to make the same kind of savings off a new PS4 game (or a used one) as I will see in a steam sale, or from CD-keys, or GOG, or GMG? I don't think I will to be honest.

I do not trade titles in, never have. I never had a PS3, I had a 360 and you are correct I do not have 80 360 titles. But not because I traded them in but because games on my PC were better and cheaper so I didn't really use the 360 very much. It only ever got used for Forza and fight night with my mates and lego games (the wife likes them - honestly! ) because everything else was better to have on my PC - better graphics, cheaper to buy, easier control method (IE KB/mouse). I also didn't need an online subscription on my PC. I think I have about 20-25 games on my 360, but I am not sure. I have lent my nephews quite a few and haven't seen them again

As for your last paragraph I agree entirely - the community side of gaming on PC tends to be far more evolved.

I was also completely honest about not touching my former PC. It remained the same system from day 1, but the only thing I did buy was a new mouse come to think of it. My MX518 lasted 6-7 years as I recall then died, so I had to buy a new one, but not a massive cost.

your using your specific behaviour patterns to make the point that they cost the same, but then don't use your specific behaviour patterns when it comes to showing expenditure on games.

You said yourself you've spent £360 on xbox games and £380 on PC games.

Yet in your first bunch of maths your used the example of the console buyer having spent £3600 on games. Nearly 10 times as much.

Using your own real world examples of what people actually spend, your no way near recouping the extra expenditure of your £2400 PC. Like I said, PC gaming is great, but it is more expensive.

 

[Haggisman]

I don't understand all the posts about "hours of tweaking and troubleshooting"? My PC gaming consists of 5-10 mins finding the optimum settings the first time I launch a game, subsequent gaming sessions consist of pushing the power button, waiting 30 seconds for boot, launching Steam big picture mode, and launching the game, no more complex or time consuming than a console

In terms of cost, buffetslayer isn't far off the mark, you can build a perfectly good gaming PC for £6-700 which will outperform any console, and it will be backwards compatible with pretty much all of your old games, PC games are cheaper, its a fact, because the developers don't have to pay licensing costs to Sony/MS, the majority of new games can be picked up for <£30, good luck doing the same with a new console game! So you're saving £10+ per game. You don't need to spend ~£40 on a specific controller, or for online services etc. Plus as mentioned, most people will still need a pc/laptop/tablet of some kind for office work and browsing. I agree that the upfront cost of a gaming PC is much higher than that of a console, but for the overall life cycle cost, there's not a massive difference

 

[Fr0dders]

except of course when something goes wrong. Something strange happens and you realize you've got a driver issue and need to update you drivers. You go to update your drivers and your old ones won't uninstall properly.

Or whatever. PC gaming is more effort than console, but then like I said earlier, its half the fun really isn't it ?

As for the £700 PC comment. All that a cheap gaming PC does is make the point it needs upgrading come sooner. A £700 gaming PC won't be playing the latest games in 8 years time. Yes you don't need £40 on a controller, but most struggle to resist the temptation to buy nice good quality keyboard + mice that cost just as much if not more. Go and read the "show us your setup" thread and tell me otherwise its all part of the fun of PC gaming having that level of control over what input devices you use.

 

[Haggisman]

A £700 PC won't be playing the latest games in 8 years, no. A £700 gaming PC with £100 worth of upgrades per year could be easily. If you're saving £10+ per game and buy £10 games/year then there's your £100/year

 

[builder22]

I'm sure it's been mentioned but the big thing about consoles is everyone playing the same game on the same hardware
Like when they play a full album on the radio sometimes, the idea being you're all listening to it together
kinda

 

[Haggisman]

Like when they play a full album on the radio sometimes, the idea being you're all listening to it together
kinda

That sounds like quite possibly the most cringeworthy thing I've ever heard of!

 

[Raymond Lin]

A £700 PC won't be playing the latest games in 8 years, no. A £700 gaming PC with £100 worth of upgrades per year could be easily. If you're saving £10+ per game and buy £10 games/year then there's your £100/year

That would require you to buy 10 games a year to make up those differences.

The very point I made earlier, a presumption that I don't think you can make across the board and apply it for everyone and thus use it as an argument for the high price of the PC build.

 

[Haggisman]

That would require you to buy 10 games a year to make up those differences.

The very point I made earlier, a presumption that I don't think you can make across the board and apply it for everyone and thus use it as an argument for the high price of the PC build.

You mean the same way you're claiming that PC gaming is more expensive than console across the board?

Buying less than 1 game per month is hardly excessive or unusual, and no, you can't apply it across the board, but then you could say the same about consoles. Some people buy £2-300 peripherals for their consoles (guitar hero, steering wheels, etc), some people spend £3k on a TV and home cinema system for their console. The point is that its not as simple as just saying "PC gaming is more expensive. Period", because it doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive.

 

[spoffle]

Don't kid yourself. You say not many, but then proceed to explain why its not really an issue since experienced PC users know what these settings mean.

No they don't ! that's why there's so many comments in the GTA V PC thread asking what settings to use and people copying and sharing each others. There is lots of tweaking going on, and its all trial and error. The sort of trial and error that would put most console gamers off. However, this is part of the fun if you're a PC gamer, so don't try and play it down.

(speaking as somebody who does both here by the way)

And Speaking of games possible on PC that aren't possible on consoles. Try Flight sims. Proper flight sims like DCS World. They wouldn't be possible on console.

I'm not kidding myself about anything. I turned my settings to max with GTA 5, and then went about playing it, then upped the MSAA a bit.

I spent about 2 minutes changing the graphics settings. I spent more time looking at the controls than I did at the graphics settings.

It's really not that hard, and I play console games as well, I have/had most of the major consoles (and hand helds) since the SNES bar the Sega Saturn, Xbox 360 and Xbox One...

 

[spoffle]

"Investment", it's not an investment unless it can bring you a return. It is an expense.

A PC has a higher expense, one could argue lower running costs with lower price of games but the initial expense is huge.

P.s. I tend to wait a bit and get games when they hit £20 mark anyway. It's no big deal, that tend to happen after about 2 months. Which is nothing, just how long did GTA5 take to come on the PC in comparison.

So the argument for lower price PC games don't really do it for me, which means a PC has a higher initial costs, higher maintenance costs, higher time spent updating and servicing (how many version of OS would you have gone through?) and no lower games prices.

All for a bit of eye candy. It's okay thanks, I have my consoles plugged into the same home cinema as my movies and it's great to relax and play on the sofa.

Horses for courses but financially speaking, a gaming PC isn't justifiable for me.

The PC versions will still be cheaper regardless of time scale. I tend to wait for console releases to come down in price too, but again it'll always be less on PC and it'll look better.

The maintenance and updating isn't a valid argument. Console OSes require updates, as do the games. I only have to do maintenance on my PC really if I want to change something, and I have a watercooled PC.

I also have a PC plugged in to the same "Home Cinema" set up that my PS4, PS3 and Wii U are plugged in to, so I can enjoy them also from the sofa.

You also don't have to spend the quoted amounts on a capable games PC. There's a lot of choice.

Also, I would expect most people consider a higher end PC as an investment as they would be doing more than just playing games on. The PC I use to play my games on is also my graphics and CAD workstation.

 

[spoffle]

My machine is a couple years old now but i specced it with a dedicated GPU.

3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
1TB Fusion Drive
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5

Your computer wouldn't run games that look better than on a PS4.

Pc gamers always trying to justify the high costs of their machine by using the lower new launch date game prices against console over a decade to get their money back as an argument.

That is only valid if one actually buys every single game on launch day at full price for 8 years straight.

The reality is that you can't get away from the high costs of a gaming PC but you can get away from the higher initial costs of a console game by buying it a few weeks later. That's a choice right there. A choice that you can take to get cheaper games.

I think I paid only £35 for GTA5 anyway, there was a £10 voucher from from hot UK deals. There's always some kind of deal, very rarely I pay £45 for a game. That's also another reality.

In conclusion, I think one can just drop the game prices as an argument altogether, everyone buy different number of games and some people sell, trade, some don't. So you can't apply 1 person's numbers to everyone else and say that's right. Using only the constant and known factors. A console is and will always be cheaper.

And a hell lot easier to maintain.

You can get away from the high cost of PC gaming. I'm really not sure why you're focusing only on top end pricing.

You keep coming out with "this is the reality" but you are seemingly ignoring the fact that these deals that there are always some kind floating about, will also apply to PC games. So it's even more money off a game that's cheaper in the first place.

So no "one" cannot just drop the price argument, especially since your argument centres on PC gaming being significantly more expensive.

The general point is that when you look at a games PC with a load of games versus a console with a load of games the price isn't really that much different, and you are fully in control of how much you spend on a games PC. You don't need to spend thousands. You can get very good, very capable PCs for well under £1000.

 

[Haggisman]

Pc gamers always trying to justify the high costs of their machine by using the lower new launch date game prices against console over a decade to get their money back as an argument.

That is only valid if one actually buys every single game on launch day at full price for 8 years straight.

That's rubbish. I've just looked at the console prices of the last couple of games I've bought.

The latest new game I've bought was Shadow of Mordor in December. It cost me £14, including the Dark Ranger DLC. On Game, the cheapest console version (pre-owned) is £20. So a second hand console game is ~50% more expensive, 4 months later.

I almost bought Alien Isolation in a Steam sale recently for £8. The cheapest console version (pre-owned) is £15, so just under double the price.

A console is and will always be cheaper.

If you look at purely the initial purchase of the hardware then yes, but what good is a console if you never buy any games for it?

And a hell lot easier to maintain.

I disagree - if a component in your console fails, you need a whole new console. If a component in your PC fails, you just replace that component.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You mean the same way you're claiming that PC gaming is more expensive than console across the board?

Buying less than 1 game per month is hardly excessive or unusual, and no, you can't apply it across the board, but then you could say the same about consoles. Some people buy £2-300 peripherals for their consoles (guitar hero, steering wheels, etc), some people spend £3k on a TV and home cinema system for their console. The point is that its not as simple as just saying "PC gaming is more expensive. Period", because it doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive.

Yes, you already said £700 and then £100 upgrade for the duration of the life of a console.

I have already ask, the fairer question is can a £300 gaming PC last the same duration as a £300 console?

But for the parts to make the gaming part works, a PC machine costs more. You cannot get away from that fact. Stop using game pricing as a justification to make it a level playing field.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Your computer wouldn't run games that look better than on a PS4.



You can get away from the high cost of PC gaming. I'm really not sure why you're focusing only on top end pricing.

You keep coming out with "this is the reality" but you are seemingly ignoring the fact that these deals that there are always some kind floating about, will also apply to PC games. So it's even more money off a game that's cheaper in the first place.

So no "one" cannot just drop the price argument, especially since your argument centres on PC gaming being significantly more expensive.

The general point is that when you look at a games PC with a load of games versus a console with a load of games the price isn't really that much different, and you are fully in control of how much you spend on a games PC. You don't need to spend thousands. You can get very good, very capable PCs for well under £1000.

I didn't set the high end pricing, Buffetslayer did with his £2400. So why don't you ask him?

Then if you are going for a budget gaming pc, how about level playing field, a £300 gaming pc, now you think it will last the duration of the PS4's life span and will run games at the end cycle of the PS4 and look that good?

As for whether my iMac can run games as good as the PS4, I don't intend to find out, but if that can't then I am not sure how you think PC gaming is better...this machine is barely 2 years old and fallen behind a PS4 that is 1 years old? Which btw, when this mac was released, it was on the the cutting edge. So I am not sure how PC gaming is better if this spec of a computer look in 6 year's time.

 

[spoffle]

Yes, you already said £700 and then £100 upgrade for the duration of the life of a console.

I have already ask, the fairer question is can a £300 gaming PC last the same duration as a £300 console?

With regard to peripherals, like the guitar hero guitar...eh, like you can get away with that if you want to play that on the PC? Unless the PC version that costs £25 comes free with it, that is not a value argument.

In terms of the home cinema. That is alway been in the living room, it is like I have a car. It has nothing to do with the console. I can plug the PC into it too, not exclusive to the console.

As for the television, show me a house that doesn't have a television and had to buy a television to play console then I'll let you have that point.

You can plug a PC in to a TV too...

Peripherals? Console controllers are stupidly expensive. If you want to play multiplayer games you need to either buy an online sub, additional controllers or both.

It's pointless comparing hardware cost to hardware cost the way you are. People keep telling you that software costs are very different, which means overall the price ends up not being that different.

I don't have a TV set up in the room with my consoles and PCs, I don't watch broadcast TV so there's no need for one.

 

[Raymond Lin]

That's rubbish. I've just looked at the console prices of the last couple of games I've bought.

The latest new game I've bought was Shadow of Mordor in December. It cost me £14, including the Dark Ranger DLC. On Game, the cheapest console version (pre-owned) is £20. So a second hand console game is ~50% more expensive, 4 months later.

And I can sell it a week later for £15.

If you look at purely the initial purchase of the hardware then yes, but what good is a console if you never buy any games for it?

I'd buy games but not every game that get released, so it would take a huge number of games, amongst some good games, there will be mediocre or crap games, to make up the difference. I am not sure what is more waste of money, the gaming pc or buying an abundance of crap games so fool myself thinking i am saving money, by spending money.

I disagree - if a component in your console fails, you need a whole new console. If a component in your PC fails, you just replace that component.

I'll unbox a console and plug it in to replace the broken one vs you take apart your PC to replace the old broken component.

Let's see who is quickest and easiest.

How's that for a maintenance challenge?

 

[Fr0dders]

That's rubbish. I've just looked at the console prices of the last couple of games I've bought.

The latest new game I've bought was Shadow of Mordor in December. It cost me £14, including the Dark Ranger DLC. On Game, the cheapest console version (pre-owned) is £20. So a second hand console game is ~50% more expensive, 4 months later.

I almost bought Alien Isolation in a Steam sale recently for £8. The cheapest console version (pre-owned) is £15, so just under double the price.



If you look at purely the initial purchase of the hardware then yes, but what good is a console if you never buy any games for it?



I disagree - if a component in your console fails, you need a whole new console. If a component in your PC fails, you just replace that component.

at a £6 saving its going to take a lot of games to claw back the difference, especially when you consider you can trade your console games in for store credit.

Just enough with the cost debate already. It was fine as a minor side track discussion but this thread is heading down a completely different ring road now.

PC gaming costs more, but you get plenty more for that money. Stop kidding yourselves and trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[spoffle]

I didn't set the high end pricing, Buffetslayer did with his £2400. So why don't you ask him?

Then if you are going for a budget gaming pc, how about level playing field, a £300 gaming pc, now you think it will last the duration of the PS4's life span and will run games at the end cycle of the PS4 and look that good?

As for whether my iMac can run games as good as the PS4, I don't intend to find out, but if that can't then I am not sure how you think PC gaming is better...this machine is barely 2 years old and fallen behind a PS4 that is 1 years old? Which btw, when this mac was released, it was on the the cutting edge. So I am not sure how PC gaming is better if this spec of a computer look in 6 year's time.

I know, but you're adhering to it when there isn't really any need to. His example sets out IF you've bought a £2400 PC, if you've spend half of that it's fairly easy to see that no matter how well you can do mental gymnastics, that the consoles aren't actually cheaper than a games PC.

My point about your iMac is that it's not actually high end hardware, the GPU isn't particularly fast and you can get faster better, more capable GPUs now that aren't limited by 2GB VRAM and a 256 bit memory interface.

But you're talking about an iMac, they've never been high end or close in terms of hardware, they use laptop components because they're about form, not function. It's not cutting edge in the way you seem to be assuming, it will have been cutting edge with regards to getting that level of hardware within the small form factor. Your iMac isn't a valid example of a computer used for games in 6 years' time.