Games for 2009... And BEYOND!

[The GoldFish]

Isn't the graphics chip in a PS3 supposed to be (basically) an nVidia 7800? Wouldn't that not even BE directx 10 capable? Doesn't that make it I don't know, let's count, nVidia 8xxx, 9xxx and GTX 2xx, yes, something like 3 generations out of date?

Basically my point is maybe you'd like to compare even remotely eqivilent hardware rather than saying that that F1 car is so much more expensive than that Vauxhall Astra, what a waste of money!

And why are you including an LCD panel in the cost of a computer, too? Or did I miss the press release where you get a free HDTV with your PS3?

[vanarbulax]

Maybe I'm being naive here, the main reason I get consoles is for games being developed exclusively for them (which seem to be, at least currently, crucial to make up for the lack of good PC games coming in 2009) but also the fact that you can just play games with no hassle (I know it's not to hard to mess around with settings, installation, system requirements and the occasional crash but often I just want to buy a game, pop in the disc and immediately start playing).

Anyway the point I was trying to get to is that if Sony and Microsoft can't sell their machines at a profit (let alone not making a loss) how can a console not be cheaper than building a computer of equivalent hardware when the parts manufacturers have to make a profit? I know Sony has to deal with the cost of a blu-ray player but surely cost vs. hardware (in terms of getting a completely new machine) has to be cheaper for consoles? If not how come the consumer can get a better deal than Sony or Microsoft?

[Pox]

Yes, console hardware is sold below cost - but not much. You can get a 360 for AU$400, or a PC with similar power for $650 - but the PC can do a lot more than play games.

[TomCat39]

That's just it, if I was building a "GAMING" machine, I wouldn't build the equivalent to a PS3. I'd want to build close to the best just so I didn't have to do it every 6-9 months. I couldn't afford to build a machine that often, I'm not rich.

The consoles usually have a life of 2-4 years while the PC is only about 9 months before they are developing for a better machine. So time value, the console is much cheaper.

Also, PC games are usually developed for many many configurations so only get semi optimized (too many configs to optimize for them all) so quite often the same game will run better and look better on the older console than it does on the PC. The console it's highly optimized being it's only the one single setup they have to optimize for.

And lastly, as someone else mentioned. The console, you just plug and play.

And as for the TV vs PC monitor. I throw the monitor in for cost being that almost EVERYONE has a TV so doesn't have to buy one already just to use the console. Shoot the average family has at least 2 TV's in their home. The PC however, not everyone has a PC to start with or a monitor just laying around. So to get a PC working you usually have to buy a monitor.

And I will repeat myself, a gaming rig to me needs to last at least 2 to 3 years. So that means I'd have to spend for top compenents as fast as PC parts become obsolete. Now if I had money I'd have everything, a monster gaming rig, all the consoles, a 65" HDTV etc etc etc. But since I don't I find the console's to be MUCH cheaper than PC gaming in the long haul.

[RabidZombie]

The consoles usually have a life of 2-4 years while the PC is only about 9 months before they are developing for a better machine. So time value, the console is much cheaper.

Rubbish. It's not like all games a developed for the bleeding edge PC. Left 4 Dead runs on a PC built with components that are 4 years old. The GPU is the limiting factor here (GeForce 6 series. Hell, a mid-range card would work). A 7 year old CPU can also run it - Athlon XP. And people complained Left 4 Dead's system requirements were too big a step forward.

[ynbniar]

As long as I can run Spectaculator I don't care

[Ace Rimmer]

You people are forgetting that if you have the proper hardware, you don't need a monitor. A TV will do just fine.

My card is four years old and it can use a TV as a monitor.

[TomCat39]

I've played many a game at minimum spec. Just cuz it will run on a GF 6XXX series doesn't mean it's going to look decent. sure run it in 640x480, all shadows off etc etc just so you can get 25 FPS. No thanks.

I've been building systems and gaming for almost 15 years now and I've usually done "budget" gaming systems. Frankly I've not been able to experience the the eye candy I like. Always had to run with minimal settings and even then engines would remove models to attempt keeping a 25 FPS.

Even Multiwinia bogs down to 5 FPS at moments with a 7800 GS GPU because it's an older 2800+ (equivalant of 3GHz) cpu.

If you want to keep the performance up, you have to upgrade every 6-9 months, remember the jump with Oblivion? What about NWN2?

Maybe you like turning down eye candy for each successive game that is released (something you don't ever do for consoles). But I don't.

But you know what, you all think PC's are cheaper for gaming setups for long term enjoyment. I disagree fully with my 15 years of PC gaming experience. Lets just agree to disagree....

And for TV as monitor, unless you have an HD TV, soooo not worth it. And if you have an HD TV you have more money so can afford a better gaming rig thus don't need to upgrade quite as often to keep with the closer to optimum performance in games etc etc.

Example being Grandpa. Grandpa has 3 TV's. Buy him a console, he's up and running with the grandkids in minutes. No TV needed to purchase. He prolly has never had a PC (starting to change but even 5 years ago was pretty common). So just buy him the box, PS, cpu, mobo, kb, mouse, GPU, webcam but don't buy him a monitor. I'd be willing to bet he won't be up and running in minutes and he'll be cursing that he doesn't have a monitor.

There are always exceptions to every generalizations, and basically most of you have been attacking my statements with exceptions. Including the "direct" comparison which doesn't really apply. For one thing a PC that is equivalent to say the PS3 can't run PS3 games. You have to get the PC version and that version probably considers the PS3 level of PC hardware as close to bare minimum. So it won't look as good or run as well on that level of hardware being everything is turned down just to run. That's like comparing the old AMD XP 2800+ (1.67GHz) cpu with an Intel single core 1.67 GHz cpu. It's the equivalant yet the AMD smokes the intel. So it's compared to an Intel that runs about the same (2.8 Ghz cpu). It's the same with PC to console gaming. So in general, I know I am right. In the long haul, PC's are a more expensive gaming platform. Always have been but won't alway be so. Consoles are finally starting to reach the same levels in costs. But still isn't there yet for the same level of ease, performance, eye candy and availability. On any one catagory, you can find an exception, but as a whole.....

But you know what. Who cares. You think as you wish, and I'll think as I wish. I'm tired of defending my opinions against exceptions or special case scenarios.

Ciao

[NeoThermic]

TomCat39: I think you're really looking at this from totally the wrong angle.

First, a console is a given development target. Joe Average's 360 is going to have the same GPU and CPU as your own 360. Ergo developers don't have to worry about if the game works on all consoles, they are all the same so it does.

Secondly the power of a 360 isn't much compared to a decent but cheap gaming rig. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get a machine that is better than the 360 in terms of gaming power. What separates a PC from a console is that there is always better things for developers to play with on PCs.

Take Mirrors Edge. the PC version has a full physics engine that'll run on nVidia GPUs. You don't even have that ability in a 360, yet you can get that ability in a gaming PC for about £500 (and this PC will also be able to be your webbrowing PC and your image editing PC and your skype PC and your IV games playing machine and your media and music machine).

In this aspect, a PC is better than a console. After gaming on a 360 you can at best do two other things on the console: watch a film or play music. With a PC you can do anything you can find x86 compatible code for.

For gaming a PC is also equally better. Anyone who is still running a 6-series nvidia geforce can upgrade their card to an 8, 9, 2x0 series just by buying a new card (prices from about £50). Can you do that with a console? Can you fuck!

NeoThermic

[Xocrates]

So, currently playing Crayon Physics Deluxe, and I got to say I often go "wheeeeee" whenever one of my own intricate creations comes to life

So, yeah, as of Island four, two thumbs up.
I get the feeling the game can be rather short though, but it's only starting to get complicated, so who knows

[TomCat39]

Jelco: Care to expand or are you just in simple dismissal mode without any intellectual dialog to back up your opinion?

TomCat39: I think you're really looking at this from totally the wrong angle.

First, a console is a given development target. Joe Average's 360 is going to have the same GPU and CPU as your own 360. Ergo developers don't have to worry about if the game works on all consoles, they are all the same so it does.

Secondly the power of a 360 isn't much compared to a decent but cheap gaming rig. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get a machine that is better than the 360 in terms of gaming power. What separates a PC from a console is that there is always better things for developers to play with on PCs.

Take Mirrors Edge. the PC version has a full physics engine that'll run on nVidia GPUs. You don't even have that ability in a 360, yet you can get that ability in a gaming PC for about £500 (and this PC will also be able to be your webbrowing PC and your image editing PC and your skype PC and your IV games playing machine and your media and music machine).

In this aspect, a PC is better than a console. After gaming on a 360 you can at best do two other things on the console: watch a film or play music. With a PC you can do anything you can find x86 compatible code for.

For gaming a PC is also equally better. Anyone who is still running a 6-series nvidia geforce can upgrade their card to an 8, 9, 2x0 series just by buying a new card (prices from about £50). Can you do that with a console? Can you fuck!

NeoThermic

Neothermic: I never once said a console was better than a PC, even low end PC's. I was just saying the bang for the buck over time and as a whole, the console has been more cost effective aka cheaper. But even that is changing. I mean the PS3 came out it was 700 USD, the cost of a low grade (non gaming) PC was less minus the monitor.

As for the NVidia 6XXX gpu just upgrade to 9XXX. Probably not just that simple. Most 6XXX cpu's were AGP, 9XXX is only PCIe. So you'd have to buy a new mobo wich would probably require new cpu and new memory. So it's not just a new GPU that would be purchased. And the top end cards are 500 USD each. The cost of a PS3 is only 600 USD right now.

My whole argument has simply been that a GOOD gaming rig, not a decent, or average gaming rig, but GOOD gaming rig is a wee bit more expensive than a console to get the same amount of "gaming" use out of it (2-4 years).

Here is my example, I built my machine about 3 years ago. It's an AMD XP 2800+ with a maxed out 7800 GS CO agp card, 2 gig memory with 500 gig HD space. The machine cost me about 1500 to build when it was all said and done. It's now so weak that I don't even attempt any of the new game releases now.

Now I look at the Sony PS lifespan, it ran how many years for the 350 dollar investment? Even Nintendo Wii. I spent about 400 USD on it with the extra controllers and I'm sure I'll still be able to buy new games for it in 2 years and it's already over a year old. 400 to 1500, which is easier on my pocket book for the 2-3 year play range.

A PC is by far superior. I can do more and it's way more versatile. But for gaming, I'll do console, and then use a non gaming PC so it too only costs about 500-700 USD.

[NeoThermic]

As for the NVidia 6XXX gpu just upgrade to 9XXX. Probably not just that simple. Most 6XXX cpu's were AGP, 9XXX is only PCIe.

Considering that the 6x series was the first card of nvidia's to have SLI, I'm going to disagree on that one. nVidia only made AGP versions because at the time there was demand for them, but anyone building a new system back in the 6 series days had the choice of PCIe and should've gone with it.

And the top end cards are 500 USD each. The cost of a PS3 is only 600 USD right now.

Except the graphics ability of the PS3 is comparable to an nVidia 7800 (the RSX is basically a specially designed 7800). Yes, your 600 USD PS3 has the power of the card in your old machine. So stop talking about top end graphics cards when the PS3 itself isn't even a 1/10th of one.


NeoThermic

[Pox]

I think everything I would say has already been covered - but I reiterate my point that it is completely unneccessary to get a new PC every 6-9 months. My 4- and-a-bit-year-old gaming machine, now in the hands of my sister, would be "budget" by TomCat's standards - it cost AU$1200 and originally had a 6600gt with an athlon64. We recently spent AU$250 on a 9800gt and another gig of ram, and it can now play TF2, COD4 (and I'm guessing 5, I'm avoiding the Treyarchness), and many other games with ease. That's 50 months with a total spend of around US$1000.
You don't get max settings and high framerates on a console, so don't expect it from a reasonably-priced PC... console games are heavily optimised for the single target platform, and many games (*cough*GTA4*cough*) still manage abysmal framerates on them.

[TomCat39]

Jelco: Care to expand or are you just in simple dismissal mode without any intellectual dialog to back up your opinion?

The problem with one is that you take everything too seriously. Ace's comment was obviously a joke. In the second example you fail to acknowledge that grandfathers can usually do with out-of-the-box PCs (not having to build a custom one) because they won't need the top-of-the-range hardware us computer fetishists need.

Ahhh yes and out of the box PC's come with a monitor!!!! Imagine that. That's what that comment was all about. Someone said you don't NEED a monitor for a computer. I also pointed out that using your TV (non HD) as a monitor blows chunks because of the extreme low resolution of standard TV. Shoot most PC's do higher resolution than even the 1080p HD TV's. My CRT monitor does 1600x1200. Can't put that onto a normal TV. So take my comments totally out of context just to dismiss me. Nice tactic. That whole thing was for the special case value of not needing a monitor for a computer being I factored the monitor in on the cost of PC gaming machine. Someone argued the special case that you don't need the monitor so can't count the cost. I disagree, monitor is part of the cost of a PC for initial setups.

I didn't know there was a problem with "one" or are you calling me "one"? Quite a title to be placing, I'd think.

As for the NVidia 6XXX gpu just upgrade to 9XXX. Probably not just that simple. Most 6XXX cpu's were AGP, 9XXX is only PCIe. So you'd have to buy a new mobo wich would probably require new cpu and new memory. So it's not just a new GPU that would be purchased. And the top end cards are 500 USD each. The cost of a PS3 is only 600 USD right now.

Oh come on, stop being so nitpicky. Let's just say we're talking about a non-AGP system, OK? I think we can all agree that in the case of AGP systems, yes, your system is so incredibly old and obsolete that it will need a full replacement. (Also, I had a PCI-E system with a 6600LE running in a machine until not too long ago - I bought the card four years ago.) But I upgraded my one-year-old PC with a new graphics card not too long ago (X1950GT to HD4850) and am fairly sure I'll be able to hold out for about another one until I need to do anything similar again. This argument is void.

How is it null and void? How much did you spend for the HD4850? And I'm talking about AGP because my system IS agp and I only built it 3 to 3.5 years ago. Hello, there is a bunch of AGP systems still out there. I'm not going to go price the HD850 but I'm sure the card alone costs as much as some consoles. So you spent that after one year. And it's going to hold you off for what 1 more year? Then you do it all over again? If you want to keep up on PC gaming you have to continually spend money upgrading the machine to varying degrees. But I know, upgrades are free so they don't count as far as cost over time. Thus my comments are null and void. I see. See you assume everyone has newer machine and that AGP is no longer a factor with gamers because no gamers have AGP systems anymore. Just because YOU don't have an AGP system doesn't mean that applies for everyone, or even me for that matter. And I repeat, it doesn't cost anything so is null and void.

My whole argument has simply been that a GOOD gaming rig, not a decent, or average gaming rig, but GOOD gaming rig is a wee bit more expensive than a console to get the same amount of "gaming" use out of it (2-4 years).

(...)

Now I look at the Sony PS lifespan, it ran how many years for the 350 dollar investment? Even Nintendo Wii. I spent about 400 USD on it with the extra controllers and I'm sure I'll still be able to buy new games for it in 2 years and it's already over a year old. 400 to 1500, which is easier on my pocket book for the 2-3 year play range.

Reply directly to older posts before denying them again, will you?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a non-sequitor?

My comparison has been about cost per lifespan. If you want a gaming rig that you don't have to spend money on (upgrades or new rig) you have to go all top end and it costs a good 3500 USD in north america. And looking at consoles history thus far, they usually have a life span of about 3 years for the one time cost of the console. To me the 250-500 USD cost of the console over 3 years is cheaper than the 3500+ USD on the gaming rig for the same 3 years. Even if you get 5 years out of the PC it still doesn't match the console for time value ratio.

I'm also talking about starting from scratch thus the grandpa analogy. If you already have parts laying around you can save yourself quite a bit on the PC. But that doesn't really translate to consoles because you don't build consoles, you start from scratch and buy the whole thing (out of box as you put it). Thus my comparisons have been on the same note with PC's, out of the box.

Rubbish. It's not like all games a developed for the bleeding edge PC. Left 4 Dead runs on a PC built with components that are 4 years old. The GPU is the limiting factor here (GeForce 6 series. Hell, a mid-range card would work). A 7 year old CPU can also run it - Athlon XP. And people complained Left 4 Dead's system requirements were too big a step forward.

And let it be know that this is a point I entirely agree on. Give me one game that recently came out that wouldn't run on very high settings on my old X1950GT. Let it be known that what motivated the upgrade wasn't gaming performance - it was VJing performance, which equalled live 3-layer video overlay mixing with a dozen of effects thrown over it at a halfway decent resolution (800x600, which is quite decent when you take PAL resolution into account as a benchmark).

Let me add, with regards to console lifespan, that PC's being upgradeable can adjust to newer technologies when needed (if this is needed at all, which I still think isn't the case in more than half of the games to come out these days). A console can't be upgraded to the newest technologies, so there won't be any newer technologies until the next-gen console. Instead of having a longer lifespan, you just let it get away with lagging behind technology-wise for a longer time than a PC.

Overall, I'm willing to accept that consoles are more popular than PCs, but generally I think it mostly comes down to the living-room setting, being able to game from a couch and consoles not scaring gamers with the potentially mind-boggling sheer number of shortcuts a keyboard can allow. This is not so much the ease of setting it up, but more the real laid-back style of gaming: when you feel like it, just sit down, press a button and everything is up and running in a comfortable environment, as opposed to a PC which requires some loading time, is on a desk (with a desk chair) and makes you sit close-up to a monitor.

EDIT: Whoops, typing long posts takes time. Ninja'd (partially).

Jelco

And I haven't been saying that older equipment on the PC rig won't play recent games. I've been saying they won't play them well. They look ugly, they lag, etc. If you want to play the way the game was designed to be played, you need top end hardware. If you don't mind lower resoultion, less shaders, no AA and AF.... Then by all means. Stick with 4 year old hardware. But be prepared to have to upgrade within a year if you wish to keep up with it all. If not you end up like me, built a medium grade gamining system at the time (most I could afford) and 3 years later I can't even come close to playing anything new at any decent level of visuals or resolution, and to fix it, will cost me another 1500 USD being I pretty much have to replace most everything in the machine.

Oh and another note on the TV as monitor bit. I don't think there is a resolution difference between PAL and NTSC. My experience was a large TV with svideo input running a pc at max 800x600 and you couldn't read any of the icons on the screen and everything looked like crap. This is where I think standard TV falls severely short of working as a acceptable computer monitor. This experience was back in 1998. I'm sure HD TV's do a much better job.

And lastly, most of my comments have been directed at PS3 for consoles because the XBOX 360 is already maxed out with the game developing power. From what I understand, the PS3 still hasn't hit that barrier yet with the games being developed. So the games will just keep getting better and better on the PS3 while XBOX 360 has hit it's wall in what it can do.

I do agree fully that the PC has a longer life span capability wise IF you are willing to keep investing more and more over time. I totally understand you can't upgrade a console, you have to wait for the next gen console. But that's not what my argument has been about. Mine has purely been initial cost between a rig that will hold you for 3 years compared to the console which will probably have a lifespan of 3 years. Console is cheaper even if less versatile. I don't know how to put it any more simple than that.

But you know what Jelco, I get it. My opinions are null and void because my intellect and experience don't even come close to equating to yours. Thus all you have to say is hog wash to me, and that makes you correct and me wrong. That's kewl. It makes perfect sense now, why to you, 1500 dollars over 3 years for PC gaming (being extremely modest on the gaming rig) is cheaper than 500 dollars over 3 years for console gaming. <--- That one sentence has been my WHOLE point this whole time and everyone has been telling me that is incorrect. 4+1 does not equal 5 it equals 9. I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

[TomCat39]

I think everything I would say has already been covered - but I reiterate my point that it is completely unneccessary to get a new PC every 6-9 months. My 4- and-a-bit-year-old gaming machine, now in the hands of my sister, would be "budget" by TomCat's standards - it cost AU$1200 and originally had a 6600gt with an athlon64. We recently spent AU$250 on a 9800gt and another gig of ram, and it can now play TF2, COD4 (and I'm guessing 5, I'm avoiding the Treyarchness), and many other games with ease. That's 50 months with a total spend of around US$1000.
You don't get max settings and high framerates on a console, so don't expect it from a reasonably-priced PC... console games are heavily optimised for the single target platform, and many games (*cough*GTA4*cough*) still manage abysmal framerates on them.

Yeah pox, I'm a little exagerated about buying a new PC every 6-9 months, really I meant more money spent on the PC every 6-9 months. Usually on a GPU which tends to be 500 or better per GPU for the top end cards. But then again, for someone who doesn't build PC's, if they wanted to keep on the top of the PC platform it would be a new PC every 6 months to a year depending on circumstances.

And true you don't get top settings or framerates on consoles, but usually you do get pretty decent looking visuals with playable frame rates. There are exceptions though jsut like the one you mentioned of GTA4. So usually you can depend on getting a decent looking game that is easily playable when a game comes out on a console. That's not true for PC. There are games I can't even run and my machine isn't that old. The technology side of my PC is getting up there being I couldn't afford top of the line 3 years ago, but still the machine is only 3 years old and games for the PC now are beyond my PC.