Hey Jow Forums
Technology-wise, aren't computers overpriced for gayming compared to consoles? I just don't buy the pcmasterrace argument in terms of costs, especially when you are most likely upgrading your pc when new shit comes out that can push more pixels/fps. This is not /v/ related, I don't play gaymes, I run loonix of the fedorian type and I own a thinkpad. I'm one of you, Jow Forums
>I run loonix of the fedorian type and I own a thinkpad. I'm one of you, Jow Forums
Larping this hard. Go back to /v/.
Yes. I was a PC gamer for decades, but last February I bought a Xbox One X and I'm finding that the games really aren't a whole lot different. Especially with ms adding complete keyboard and mouse support this month, and making more desktop software available to the Xbox store. Consoles are basically becoming desktops for around the price of a decent gpu.
My latest console is an original backwards compatible PS3 from like ten years ago.
I now mostly game on my desktop with a GTX 1060. With that said, console gaming does seem a lot cheaper and is probably a good choice if you want to play graphics-intensive games (i.e. not indie stuff or old stuff).
Another thing worth considering is just how invasive DRM is, especially for multiplayer games. Lord knows what kind of scans they run in the background and check with their servers while you're playing. That feels a bit creepy, especially since most people probably use their gaming computer for other sensitive things (work stuff, school, nudes) that the installed games DRM probably inadvertently scans as well. That makes it appealing to just offload all that crap to a dedicated console and maintain better control of your own computer.
OP here, this is what I'm seeing too. You can get a console with a game and a controller for about half price of a gtx 1070-1080ti. I fail to see the economy of buying a desktop.
umad Jow Forumsuck
>how invasive DRM is
What's the redpill about steam? All pcmasterautists are letting us know how steam is good, I don't see how they're any different from xbux or piss4
0) keyboard and mouse
1) there are so many games i wouldnt be able to live without
2) you dont need to spend that much to get good enough performance
3) you dont need to pay to play online
-1) there are a few ps4 exclusives that look really good
That they can cancel your account and your shit out of luck.
I don't even know how it works on ps4 and xbone, but I assume you can still play your disc-based games even without internet.
On PC you do have a pretty good store though called GOG from the makers of The Witcher 3, that store is completely without DRM, so you can download your game installer and make backups of it if you want to.
I thought Sony and Microsoft sell the consoles at a loss? The N64 was easily $200 22 years ago, but you can get a Playstation 4 or Xbox One bundle for the same price and maybe even less, not even accounting for inflation.
I see many people claiming that because new hardware comes out, you NEED to upgrade your PC. This is not the case, you only really need upgrades when new consoles come out, unless you're trying to play exclusives that run poorly. In contrast to consoles, you buy hardware that suits your needs and you are able to change it at any time; you can overclock, undervolt, change cooling, etc. to adapt to your new needs/surroundings; get to play multiplayer games without a subscription; have more options with peripherals; have an option to pirate; have access to GOG, where you can buy DRM free games. I'm sure you could find more. There are downsides like console makers being able to squeeze more performance out of the hardware, since they're making a game for a single set of hardware. There's also the form factor if you consider that an issue, but you can build really tiny PCs these days anyway. Consoles probably have less botnet than W10, an OS you should confine to a VM, but at least on a PC you have that option. And unless you're a total normalfag, you probably want a PC anyway, so you kill two birds with one stone.
Yep. And a lot of games that were PC exclusive will likely see a console release since most developers of those games cite that their game doesn't translate well to controllers as the main reason. When Microsoft pushes the keyboard and mouse patch, the developer agreement changes too. Right now, developers *must* develop their games with a controller as the primary input method and IF they put in their own keyboard and mouse support, it has to be a secondary method disabled by default. The new agreement allows not only for devs to make kb+m the primary input method, but they're not even required to support controllers at all. Major MMO titles will be the ones most effected by the agreement changes, as now companies like Blizzard can release WoW on Xbox.
You don't have to buy a 1080ti. A 1060ti or rx580 are a much better choice. Just because it exists, doesn't mean you are destined to buy it if you go the PC route, like I mentioned here . I see this fallacy every time people have this conversation. Why?
>When Microsoft pushes the keyboard and mouse patch
Wouldn't sony basically do the same? For some reason, I always felt sony had the better product.
>A 1060ti or rx580 are a much better choice
Right now, those cost about 350 CAD, a ps4 pro with RD2 and a controller is at 500
I don't know how much I agree with this. If you bought the Xbox One the day it was released, and built a gaming PC on the same day, the only way that PC would still be able to hang with 2018 and 2019 titles at any decent frame rate (on low settings) would be if you dropped almost $300 on an i7-4770k, and $700 on a 780ti, and that's without even counting any of the other components. Meanwhile, that Xbox One still plays the newest games with a consistent frame rate at about the equivalent to medium settings (though I'll admit the AA and shit isn't as good) and probably will continue to do so for a few more years before MS releases a console that isn't a variation of the One line so you 'have' to buy the new console to keep getting the newest games. And even then, for the first year or so of Xbox One being on the market, games were still getting a 360 release as well. I'll admit, I don't know if the same holds true for PlayStation as I'm a cheap cunt and went for Xbox One because a lot of games are "play anywhere" so when I buy it for Xbox, I get the PC version too, but I can't imagine it's a whole lot different for PS4
Probably? From what I understand, ps4 already has some keyboard and mouse support, but the developers still have to design their games around the controller where Xbox games can be keyboard and mouse only. Also, Sony is really shit about crossplay, so you would have to create a whole separate account for a MMO and basically start fresh basically how it is with MMOs now that have console ports. The hope is from the Xbox community, though, that once there is total keyboard and mouse support for Xbox that future MMO ports will be identical to PC in every way except for the graphics settings being locked so one account to rule them all. Especially if M$ is involved with the development so the game gets 'play anywhere' status and you only have to buy one copy to play on Xbox and PC.
The point I'm trying to make is that a console that you would theoretically buy in this instance is the benchmark, and you only need to build a PC fast enough to keep up with this benchmark if you are satisfied with how the console runs the game. That means running the game at the same FPS and resolution and game settings. Keeping up with consoles isn't difficult, and one's hardware doesn't slow down. I can't say the 4770k would be the right choice there, as it is much more powerful than what you need. It would have been a great investment however, considering the current CPU performance trends. A similar story for the GPU, though they scale much better. Buying high end hardware has high diminishing returns, not only because of the technological limitations, but because developers optimize for the hardware that most people use, which are the mid range cards like 1060s. I don't disagree that buying such a PC will cost more up front, but I dare say unlocking all the options a PC has is worth it. That is, unless you do the tiny bit of computing you need on a phone and play games for 3 hours a week.
>Technology-wise, aren't computers overpriced for gayming compared to consoles?
Considering additional service costs for online capabilities and full game prices, consoles exceed computers in costs on the long run. That doesn't take into account how consoles now have stronger variants that get released mid-life cycle. I once ran the numbers for a PS4 owner since the console came out, and it was stupidly costly, for a very small number of games.
In addition to that, it's worth noting that games run like shit on consoles compared to what's considered expensive computer parts, and that you can customize your computer for your liking, based on budget, performance and needs. And that you can get discounted or outright free games on computers, with an extensive library full of backwards compatibility.
>I don't even know how it works on ps4 and xbone, but I assume you can still play your disc-based games even without internet.
It's 2018, man. Do you really believe this true?
The modern internet was a mistake.
>buy PC
>torrent 3 new(ish) AAA titles
>already broken even
Okay, first of all I can't argue. Even if I could, the quads demand my acquiesce. But secondly, you're right... Since the original Xbox One is basically the equivalent of a PC running games on the low end of medium at 1080p, then medium,1080p is the benchmark. I just don't know how long a PC built to that spec in 2013 would fare with games in 2018-2019 and beyond at the low end of medium, 1080p. That's what I'm getting at; the PC games would require more demanding hardware each year to drive hardware sales, where the Xbox One would remain consistent and able to run the newest games at a reasonable frame rate with decent graphics settings. If anything, PC gamers should be calling shenanigans on the industry if they can make games that look nicer and nicer for a console released in 2013, yet the PC versions require more powerful hardware to push hardware sales. It's obvious that the devs CAN make a game in 2018 that looks stunning and can run on 2013 hardware, since they do it with consoles all the time. So why don't they?