Pc is better than console?...no. ?

[IntenseFATE98]

19 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

For every "PC games are cheaper" argument... I can point out console games that I bought for well below PC prices (even on sale) thanks to the second-hand market, and I'm not limited to special sale periods to do it.

 

That second hand market is limited to your locality, it differs everywhere. Some countries, like mine don't even have a second hand market for games due to less demand. Steam sales on the other hand are the same worldwide, for everyone. 

[DennisWilles]

3 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

Rocket League is pocket change compared to most games out there.  Whatever your laptop is, you aren't getting those kinds of framerates in The Witcher 3, The Division, Just Cause 3, Batman Arkham Knight, etc.  You can set those games to 640x480 with all the bells and whistles turned off and you won't get 144fps.  It just doesn't work that way.

 

That "slightly more powerful PC" that you somehow built for $300, will be obsolete for everything besides Rocket League and the indiest of indie games in a year or two.  If it isn't already.  Keeping in mind that console games are built to be optimized on lesser/standardized hardware while PC games aren't... so even if this hypothetical PC is technically better, games will more often than not run worse.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, a lot of it boils down to personal preference.  If you prefer your $300 laptop, hunched over a wired-in keyboard and mouse playing nothing but Rocket League... by all means.  But "getting 144fps in Rocket League" is far from proof of PC's superiority over anything.

I don't.. I was just using this as an example of better tweaking options on PC. Every console game should let you choose between higher framerate and fancy textures or whatever. Give the player the choice.

 

Besides, for $300 you will get a PC better than the PS4. If you buy the parts used it'll be significantly better. 

7 hours ago, PiotrekHenry said:

Same goes for Nier Automata, Final Fantasy 7-9 PC Ports, Metal Gear Solid PC Ports, and many more games ...

I'm amazed at how all the people who are so eager to discuss above 60FPS frameratses always use a 60Hz monitor ... usually even without VSync ...
Guys - Unless you get yourselves a 200Hz Screen (and I'm not talking about 200 MCI - Motion Clarity index which screen producers substitute for refresh rates to hide that their screens are 50 or 60Hz max) Then it completely does not matter if you have 60 or 60000 FPS. since all you get on screen are 60 refreshes per second.

It does. Frames are still rendered resulting in less skips and a much smoother experience. Play 144fps on a 60hz monitor and then on the PS4 (also 60fps), the difference is tremendous. Of course a 144hz g-sync monitor will be much better but saying it doesn't matter on a 60hz monitor is ignorant.

[nyantzu1986]

23 hours ago, ilikebig said:

Why does this pc master race thingy even exist.

because its food for trolls and keyboard warriors, and other "gaming" people who spend their time discussing BS instead of playing/enjoying games

 

btw, why does your account removed?

[Hoagie324]

I have a nice gaming PC and a PS4. I honestly prefer the PS4 because of trophies, my large friend base, and the awesome exclusives. The PC is awesome for Steam sales and awesome indie games though.

 

 I have friends that call me a 'console peasant' jokingly. Most people don't take the PC master race seriously and are just joking about it- there are the few that think they're superior because they play on PC, but that's few and far between. It's honestly a moot point- all that matters is that you fully enjoy the gaming platform you own. We're all in the same community anyways, enjoying the awesome games that developers put out for us!

[Eyjabria]

5 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

The Steam Link is horrendous.  I tried to make it my "gaming on TV" solution and there was so much latency with the wireless (in the same room) that it was completely unusable.  If I wired my PC to the Steam Link with an ethernet cable, it was perfect but kinda defeats the purpose and only works out of the box for games with Steam overlay support (so games you purchase on Origin, uPlay, GOG, etc need to be run through Steam and may not work).  There are workarounds to get it to broadcast your desktop and technically work with everything, but that becomes a colossal pain in the butt after a while since you need to set it up every time to turn a game on.  And who knows when some goofy bug or glitch might prevent that from working.

 

This is kind of a microcosm of the problems with PC though.  Preaching the benefits of "having options" only works as well as the games that support them.  Soon you just find yourself being forced to make concessions with every new game you buy... because this one doesn't support gamepads, that one doesn't support mouse and keyboard, or this one doesn't support the Steam Overlay, or that one doesn't like acknowledging my TV as a second monitor, or this one is poorly optimized so I can't get over 25fps anyways, or that one's VSYNC doesn't work properly, or this one doesn't like my brand of speakers, or that one doesn't like my brand of video card, etc, etc.

 

Push through enough shit and you realize maybe the simplicity of the console isn't all that bad.  Especially if you prefer wireless gamepads and gaming on a TV anyways... something you know every game on the PS3/4 can do... and you like it when games just work.

 

I have heard mixed things about Steam Link. For some it works and for some it's terrible. Sorry to hear it's been a bad experience for you.

 

To be fair about the "benefits of having options": it's the exact same on consoles as well. If the game doesn't support features like touch screen, motion controls, touchpad, NFC, etc. you won't be able to use them. Same applies to additional accessories like PS Move controllers or Wii Balance board - not all games support them. I've run into many poorly optimized console games as well.

I agree about the issues of PC hardware and game compatibility though. Sometimes it's hard to know if a game works well on your setup before trying. On consoles the games usually work, unless they're broken at launch and need to be patched. I guess those are fixed quickly though. 

[Doomsdayman]

Well both are great for there for there own consumers.

 

The only real problem with console for me is that they are closed system.

 

For example if Xbox was out of the run and Sony was the only remaining console manufacturer (yes, Nintendo has the Switch). Sony could do what ever they want, they could let users pay 80 bucks for PSN Plus and people will buy it.

 

 

[Dreakon13]

2 hours ago, Eyjabria said:

 

I have heard mixed things about Steam Link. For some it works and for some it's terrible. Sorry to hear it's been a bad experience for you.

 

To be fair about the "benefits of having options": it's the exact same on consoles as well. If the game doesn't support features like touch screen, motion controls, touchpad, NFC, etc. you won't be able to use them. Same applies to additional accessories like PS Move controllers or Wii Balance board - not all games support them. I've run into many poorly optimized console games as well.

I agree about the issues of PC hardware and game compatibility though. Sometimes it's hard to know if a game works well on your setup before trying. On consoles the games usually work, unless they're broken at launch and need to be patched. I guess those are fixed quickly though. 

 

The PS Move controllers and Wii Balance Board are very, very niche accessories that a handful of games use at best (and not very good ones at that).  Some games on PC literally don't properly support mouse and keyboard.  Legitimate games, not gimmicky motion control crap.  Mouse and keyboard FFS!  The lifeblood of PC input devices.  That's not "I can't play Horizon Zero Dawn with my PS Move controllers" bad... that's "Horizon Zero Dawn doesn't properly support the controller my console came with" level of bad.  It's beyond reason. 

 

 

4 hours ago, DennisWilles said:

I don't.. I was just using this as an example of better tweaking options on PC. Every console game should let you choose between higher framerate and fancy textures or whatever. Give the player the choice.

 

Besides, for $300 you will get a PC better than the PS4. If you buy the parts used it'll be significantly better. 

 

No one in their right mind builds a gaming PC with used parts, and even if you did, building from scratch... $300 will still get you a toaster.

 

And again, even if the PC were better... the games on PC require significantly better (not just a little better) hardware for the same visual output and performance as console due to the complicated nature of optimizing a game for hundreds of different hardware setups.

 

Consoles can squeeze a lot more juice out of their meager specs since developers can pull off a lot of neat tricks to get things working with their simpler, standardized hardware configurations and default settings everyone runs by.  If you throw too much customization into the mix, suddenly things get tougher.  Games run worse.  That's why Final Fantasy XV had issues with the Pro patch causing things to actually run worse.  Optimization is tricky, adding more complications to the mix rarely makes it better.

 

 

5 hours ago, IntenseFATE98 said:

 

That second hand market is limited to your locality, it differs everywhere. Some countries, like mine don't even have a second hand market for games due to less demand. Steam sales on the other hand are the same worldwide, for everyone. 

 

With sites like eBay around and the general region-free nature of the PS4 discs, you aren't limited nearly as much as you're making it out to be.  If you're concerned about currency conversion and regional pricing, Steam isn't much better in that regard.  Sales or not.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Dreakon13

[slaveknight09]

Well to answer your rant short. PC's will and always be better. Gonna ask you, what system did these game developers make their games? ON A PC. Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted series, Killzone, Last of Us, Bloodborne, etc.. these exclusives would not be possible if not been coded and created into an high end PC. Of course, they'll adjust the video settings just to have a playable game on a console. 

 

But PC gaming is slowly dying, for sure these games can easily be handled by a high end rig. But these companies are killing it. Every damn triple A release will make you suffer with its day 1 release. Low frame rate, lag issues, constant mini stuttering, constant crashes, unlimited glitches it is insanely frustrating. For instances, I got my day 1 release of Battlefield 4 on the PC and to tell you, it was a hell. I got constant crashes playing multiplayer for like 5 - 7 times a day. It was so bad that I stopped playing it for like a month. But till we get to have the patch then things works smoothly. That's the reason my friends is why I switch to console gaming that was last year when I brought my PS4. I only play selected steam games on my PC from time to time. 

[IntenseFATE98]

9 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

With sites like eBay around and the general region-free nature of the PS4 discs, you aren't limited nearly as much as you're making it out to be.  If you're concerned about currency conversion and regional pricing, Steam isn't much better in that regard.  Sales or not.

 

Steam prices are miles better than PSN prices even without sales, especially if you wanna buy a game on launch.

[IntenseFATE98]

9 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

Consoles can squeeze a lot more juice out of their meager specs since developers can pull off a lot of neat tricks to get things working with their simpler, standardized hardware configurations and default settings everyone runs by.  If you throw too much customization into the mix, suddenly things get tougher.  Games run worse.  That's why Final Fantasy XV had issues with the Pro patch causing things to actually run worse.  Optimization is tricky, adding more complications to the mix rarely makes it better.

 

Consoles run everything on low-medium settings, there's no special optimization on the modern consoles, they run on the same architecture as PC's. Too much customization doesn't make things tougher, also there are pre-set settings for low, medium, high etc. Set it on low-medium (what console's usually run on) and your PC will run the game way better than a console. Consoles can't even hit a stable 60fps on majority of games on those settings, a budget PC with a RX 470 or 1050ti will easily cross that mark. You don't need the best hardware to beat consoles at all. Even a $500 PC will last longer than a console and it's upgradable and does more stuff than a console. The occasional shitty ports are due to the laziness of devs, it's not hard at all to optimize games for different hardware. FFXV had issues due to the CPU on the Pro bottlenecking everything, its the same reason why Destiny 2 is gonna be locked at 30fps even though the GPU on the Pro is almost good enough.

[PiotrekHenry]

15 hours ago, DennisWilles said:

I don't.. I was just using this as an example of better tweaking options on PC. Every console game should let you choose between higher framerate and fancy textures or whatever. Give the player the choice.

 

Besides, for $300 you will get a PC better than the PS4. If you buy the parts used it'll be significantly better. 

It does. Frames are still rendered resulting in less skips and a much smoother experience. Play 144fps on a 60hz monitor and then on the PS4 (also 60fps), the difference is tremendous. Of course a 144hz g-sync monitor will be much better but saying it doesn't matter on a 60hz monitor is ignorant.

I used to play a game called Stepmania on a 200Hz CRT Monitor at 200 fps as well at a 60Hz LCD.
The only thing high framerate on a 60Hz Monitor does is "Screen Tearing" effects - you can read more about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_tearing
You will never get a complete frame rendered unless you use V-Sync.

Edited August 6, 2017 by PiotrekHenry

[Doomsdayman]

8 hours ago, slaveknight09 said:

Well to answer your rant short. PC's will and always be better. Gonna ask you, what system did these game developers make their games? ON A PC. Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted series, Killzone, Last of Us, Bloodborne, etc.. these exclusives would not be possible if not been coded and created into an high end PC. Of course, they'll adjust the video settings just to have a playable game on a console. 

 

But PC gaming is slowly dying, for sure these games can easily be handled by a high end rig. But these companies are killing it. Every damn triple A release will make you suffer with its day 1 release. Low frame rate, lag issues, constant mini stuttering, constant crashes, unlimited glitches it is insanely frustrating. For instances, I got my day 1 release of Battlefield 4 on the PC and to tell you, it was a hell. I got constant crashes playing multiplayer for like 5 - 7 times a day. It was so bad that I stopped playing it for like a month. But till we get to have the patch then things works smoothly. That's the reason my friends is why I switch to console gaming that was last year when I brought my PS4. I only play selected steam games on my PC from time to time. 

 

Dying? I heard a lot of people moved from consoles to PC this generation.

[Dreakon13]

5 hours ago, IntenseFATE98 said:

 

Steam prices are miles better than PSN prices even without sales, especially if you wanna buy a game on launch.

 

PSN has nothing to do with the second hand market.  And Steam prices for a new game is the same.  The Evil Within 2 would cost me $60 either way.

 

5 hours ago, IntenseFATE98 said:

 

Consoles run everything on low-medium settings, there's no special optimization on the modern consoles, they run on the same architecture as PC's. Too much customization doesn't make things tougher, also there are pre-set settings for low, medium, high etc. Set it on low-medium (what console's usually run on) and your PC will run the game way better than a console. Consoles can't even hit a stable 60fps on majority of games on those settings, a budget PC with a RX 470 or 1050ti will easily cross that mark. You don't need the best hardware to beat consoles at all. Even a $500 PC will last longer than a console and it's upgradable and does more stuff than a console. The occasional shitty ports are due to the laziness of devs, it's not hard at all to optimize games for different hardware. FFXV had issues due to the CPU on the Pro bottlenecking everything, its the same reason why Destiny 2 is gonna be locked at 30fps even though the GPU on the Pro is almost good enough.

 

Bold: What do you think dev kits and Playstation specific API's are for, if not allowing developers access to tools that can improve their games?  Proprietary technology isn't only hardware.

 

Underline: You have no idea the specific "settings" a console is at, I sincerely doubt they adhere to a PC ports presets exactly.  So here, let me refute that point.  You're wrong.  My laptop is a lower mid-range (Core i5, 8GB RAM, GTX 950) and doesn't run newer games as well as the PS4, not at least without taking the resolution down a few notches at least.

 

Bold 2: First of all, the person I was quoting said a $300 PC, $500<>$300.  Second of all, a $500 PC would still be low-mid range even for a budget gaming PC.  Third of all, in what sense would a $500 PC last longer than a console?  Console lifecycles are ~6 years at least of guaranteed gaming (the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X doesn't change that).  You honestly think games wouldn't out-grow a PC with budget parts in that amount of time?  Fourth of all, if you're building the PC from scratch, you have to factor in more than the graphics card, CPU, RAM... you'd need a motherboard, you'd need a case, you'd probably want better than the stock cooling (especially if you're going with crappier cheaper parts), you'd need an HDD, mouse and keyboard, monitor (not comparable to a consoles TV, everyone has a television, few people have monitors laying around; even if you used a television with your PC, a lot of PC games are finicky with standard TV's as I mentioned before).  And lastly, if you're upgrading the PC, it's not a $500 PC anymore.

 

Italics: Lazy devs will struggle more, with more difficult tasks.  Optimization is difficult, especially for games that weren't originally designed to scale.  Quit trying to make 2+2=5 for the sake of arguing... this is pretty simple.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Dreakon13

[IntenseFATE98]

2 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

PSN has nothing to do with the second hand market.  And Steam prices for a new game is the same.  The Evil Within 2 would cost me $60 either way.

 

 

Bold: What do you think dev kits and Playstation specific API's are for, if not allowing developers access to tools that can improve their games?  Proprietary technology isn't only hardware.

 

Underline: You have no idea the specific "settings" a console is at, I sincerely doubt they adhere to a PC ports presets exactly.  So here, let me refute that point.  You're wrong.  My laptop is a lower mid-range (Core i5, 8GB RAM, GTX 950) and doesn't run newer games as well as the PS4, not at least without taking the resolution down a few notches at least.

 

Bold 2: First of all, the person I was quoting said a $300 PC, $500<>$300.  Second of all, a $500 PC would still be low-mid range even for a budget gaming PC.  Third of all, in what sense would a $500 PC last longer than a console?  Console lifecycles are ~6 years at least of guaranteed gaming (the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X doesn't change that).  You honestly think games wouldn't out-grow a PC with budget parts in that amount of time?  Fourth of all, if you're building the PC from scratch, you have to factor in more than the graphics card, CPU, RAM... you'd need a motherboard, you'd need a case, you'd probably want better than the stock cooling (especially if you're going with crappier cheaper parts), you'd need an HDD, mouse and keyboard, monitor (not comparable to a consoles TV, everyone has a television, few people have monitors laying around; even if you used a television with your PC, a lot of PC games are finicky with standard TV's as I mentioned before).  And lastly, if you're upgrading the PC, it's not a $500 PC anymore.

 

Italics: Lazy devs will struggle more, with more difficult tasks.  Optimization is difficult, especially for games that weren't originally designed to scale.  Quit trying to make 2+2=5 for the sake of arguing... this is pretty simple.

 

Proprietary hardware limits what a dev can do, they're limited to one specific SKU. That's the biggest flaw of consoles. 

 

You cannot compare a laptop to a full PC/Console, they use completely different hardware to reduce power consumption. GTX 900 series especially was severely dumbed down on laptops. http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-950M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-950/m27713vs3510 A desktop 950 will easily outperform a PS4 in lower settings. 

 

I never referred to that persons comment, I said $500 taking into consideration a PS4 Pro costs $400 + $50-$60 for PS+. A PC will last longer if not as much a consoles typical life cycle, even if it doesn't and you did proper research, all you would need to upgrade in 3 years is the GPU. The GPU you already have will still have some resale value 3-5 years down the line, in terms of consoles, you would have to replace the entire system. What's better? A $400 console + $60 for PS+ every year and later spending another $400-500 for the latest console or $500-600 on a PC and a $150-300 (maybe more) GPU upgrade? If you're building from scratch, sure you need to buy the peripherals, but if you look out for sales and buy from various retailers and like you said, sites like ebay, you can save a lot of money. And no, you can't bring a monitor's price into this. You can still connect a PC to a TV. And no they're are not finicky, you might have used cheap cables. My HTPC has no problems with an HDMI on my Bravia, you're only mainly limited by the refresh rate. Most TV's have game mode to reduce latency and perform better for gameplay. "if you're upgrading the PC, it's not a $500 PC anymore." Same can be said when you buy a new gen console, it's not $400 anymore.

 

I'm not making 2+2=5, wtf is that analogy? You're saying AAA devs with a nearly unlimited budget have an excuse when a game has a shitty port? Indies, I would agree (most of them run better on PC anyways) but AAA devs have no excuse. It's pure laziness and favouritism towards consoles to make more $$$$. 

[BurnedChipmunk]

The problem is, both sides talk bollocks and aren't prepared to admit some simple facts....

1. PC is simply better than consoles at playing game. It is. This is undeniable. A PC will perform better. It will achieve better framerates, it can reach higher resolutions, it can run more detailed texture packs and graphical settings, and it can do all that while multitasking. In addition it can run mods and has variety in input device, and one of the widest libraries of games in existence. These are some pretty clear benefits to PC gaming.

2. Consoles are more convenient and cheaper than PC, and (while this is somewhat subjective), they have the better exclusives. Consoles are plug and play systems, and while the architecture is becoming more and more like a PC every generation, they're still easier to use than a PC. Frankly PC gamers frequently come across as arrogant pricks when they claim PC gaming is easy. Just because they understand computer science, doesn't mean everyone does. It's the same as the mechanic who takes the piss out of someone who doesn't know how to change a tire. Just because you can do it doesn't mean everyone can, or that they care to learn... some people just want to play their damn games. As for expense. Yes you CAN make a cheap PC that can match a console, but it requires you to know computers and build it yourself (see previous point), pre-built PCs are far more expensive. Additionally outside of USA the parts are more expensive too, so these $300 gaming PCs are utter bullshit outside USA and even a stretch inside USA. PC gamers also claim the games are cheaper citing Steam sales, but console games are physical products that retain value, you can trade them in when you're done, or you can wait 6 months and get them used at a fraction of the cost. Also, you buy a game on Steam and it doesn't work; tuff shit, (while they technically offer refunds, I've tried to get a Steam refund 3 times and got ignored. So as far as I'm concerned Steam refunds don't exist). There's no such thing as a console game that doesn't work. You don't need new drivers, new hardware, or to check your system specs before purchase. You own a PS4, does the game box have PS4 at the top? It'll work, simple.

3. The differences don't matter. You can get a gaming PC for about the price of a console and it'll run like shit. If you know what you're doing you can just about make it match the consoles, or possibly slight exceed it... but honestly, why fucking bother? If you're going to game on PC, you're doing it because you want the high end graphics. You want 1440p at 60Hz as standard, and good for you. Go ahead and spend 3 times the price of a console on a PC and enjoy that higher graphical fidelity if it matters all that much to you. The fact is, most people don't care. I still play my Sega Saturn for fuck sake. I play games because the games are fun and honestly don't notice the resolution or framerate most of the time, and I bet most gamers don't. There's a reason people need those FPS counters on their screen when benchmarking and testing their games. Why? Because you generally can't tell the difference between 30Hz, 45Hz, 60Hz unless you're actually looking for it. Gameplay wise, sure, framerate matters as it can effect input lag and cause the game to become choppy; particularly in Fighting Games or anything that needs fast reflexes... but for the most part it's nowhere near as important as people make out, particularly PC gamers who use this as an excuse to act like dicks. I'd prefer all my games to run at 60Hz, but really it doesn't matter and I know for a fact there are PC gamers who claim 30Hz is unplayable but couldn't tell what framerate their games where playing at if they weren't monitoring it. The bullshit about lower framerates looking more "cinematic" or that the human eye can't see above certain framerates, is exactly that, bullshit... but it's nowhere near as significant as PC gamers make it out to be.

4. PC is a closed system pretending to be an open system. If you're a PC gamer you're just as beholden to Steam as a Playstation gamer is to Sony. Sure there's a few DRM free games, but not many. Sure there's GOG, but their library is very limited. It's got almost nothing from the last 10 years of gaming. If it was released after 2005, it's likely exclusive to Steam on PC. This means if you don't like Steam, if you prefer physical media, or if you want to game offline... tuff shit.

5. The refresh-rate, colour display, sharpness and brightness setting on a PC monitor are bad for your eyes after prolonged use. It causes eye strain and it's why your eyes always feel tired if you've spent more than about 30 mins reading these forums. Unless you use filtering programs (which help but don't stop the problem), you will have a less comfortable time looking at a monitor than you will a TV, particularly as I've yet to find a monitor above 32 inch. If you want to game on a huge 50 inch TV (which is a totally different experience to gaming on a monitor at a desk), you're better off using a console. Sure you can put your PC through a TV but say goodbye to those higher resolutions and more detailed textures, the TV is running it at 1080p, (unless you have a 4k TV, and if you can afford a 4k TV, you don't need to choose between PC and console, you have both). TVs also have a tendency to display PC colours incorrectly, with whites particularly looking off. Sure, there's probably ways to fix this, but I refer you back to point 2. I don't care to learn the equivalent of a computer science degree just so I can set up my games; you want to play on a TV without excessive hassle, you need a console.

So. I play on both PC and console, but I'm probably more of a console gamer. I love some PC games like the Civilization and Tropico series (playing Tropico on console is like pulling teeth frankly). I'll admit I got a decent graphics card so I could play The Witcher 3 in stupidly smooth high-res just so I could stop and coo "oooh, pretty"; but it would have been just as enjoyable a game on PS4 and it wouldn't have cost me £285 for a graphics card. I will always openly state, PC is superior to consoles in performance... but if, like me, you want a pick up and play gaming experience, like to collect physical games, and want to spend time away from your PC because you spend all day working on a PC and don't want your leisure time to be spent on one too; well in that case console is better.

 

If all gamers would just admit these facts maybe this stupid tribal bullshit would stop. (And yes, they're all facts, if you disagree with them... you're wrong. These are not opinions they're demonstrable facts).

[ilikebig]

23 hours ago, DennisWilles said:

I don't.. I was just using this as an example of better tweaking options on PC. Every console game should let you choose between higher framerate and fancy textures or whatever. Give the player the choice.

 

Besides, for $300 you will get a PC better than the PS4. If you buy the parts used it'll be significantly better. 

It does. Frames are still rendered resulting in less skips and a much smoother experience. Play 144fps on a 60hz monitor and then on the PS4 (also 60fps), the difference is tremendous. Of course a 144hz g-sync monitor will be much better but saying it doesn't matter on a 60hz monitor is ignorant.

For $300 you cannot build a gaming pc for shit

[Cobby]

You can get Pornhub on a PC, you can get Pornhub on a PS4, you can get Pornhub on a mobile. You know what you can't get Pornhub on? A defibrillator, useless pieces of shit ... 

[IntenseFATE98]

24 minutes ago, BurnedChipmunk said:

*snip*

 

1) Agreed

 

2) You don't need to know computer science to build a PC, it's like putting together expensive legos. If you're really paranoid, most hardware shops assemble it for you for a pretty cheap price if you buy the components yourself. I agree parts are expensive outside the US, but the same can be said for consoles. PS4 was almost $700 at launch in my country, add another $60 for PS+, it's not a good investment for something that can be used just for games/streaming at that price. Software's like GeForce experience updates your drivers regularly, Windows 10 does the same for other hardware. You don't need to manually do it. There are plenty of sites on which you can save your PC specs and it'll tell you within seconds if your hardware is compatible and what settings/fps you can run the game.

 

3) "If you're going to game on PC, you're doing it because you want the high end graphics" Wrong. PC has its own exclusives too and can run older games too on one single hardware. Some people also prefer K/B for games. There's plenty of other reasons too, not because they want high end graphics (this is a minority IMO). You can easily tell the difference between 30, 45 and 60fps. Play GTA 5 on a PS4 and then play it on a PC at 60fps or higher, there's a huge difference. Not just GTA, even competitive games like R6 Siege, Overwatch etc. There's a reason PC's are used for competitive gaming.

 

4) I agree the DRM bit is BS, but still you're not limited in terms of quantity of games. If your old console breaks down, those older games are unplayable on newer consoles. Wanna play them? you'll have to buy a new console again, that's a pain in the ass, especially if the console is no longer in production.

 

5)  "The refresh-rate, colour display, sharpness and brightness setting on a PC monitor are bad for your eyes after prolonged use. It causes eye strain and it's why your eyes always feel tired if you've spent more than about 30 mins reading these forums" That's not normal, I use my laptop pretty much the entire day in Uni and it hardly strains my eyes. You can always turn down the brightness to suit your eyes if they're really that sensitive. Refresh rates of a monitor don't affect your eyes at all. That's bs. All monitors are standardized at 60hz. You can get bigger monitors too http://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/all-monitors/s/28_/_/n-10+11+hv22x+trojx/ Not just from Samsung, but from Asus, BenQ and LG too.

 

At the end it's all down to preference, I use both a PC and a PS4. Prefer some games on PS4 and some on PC. But PC is easily the better investment imo, even though it's more expensive. 

[BurnedChipmunk]

3 minutes ago, IntenseFATE98 said:

*snip*

 

Monitors most certainly do cause eye strain and other issues...

http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/computer-vision-syndrome#1
 

Here's the full academic papers on the issue, it's a PDF by the way.
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/MPR/article-full-text-pdf/0905F9948599
https://www.aoa.org/Documents/optometrists/effects-of-computer-use.pdf
http://www.orion-group.net/medicaljournal/pdf/332.pdf

This is a fact. Monitors cause eye strain and prolonged use of a computer causes 'computer vision syndrome' in more than 60% of people. Additionally those who suffer seizures, migraines, or other cluster-headache disorders find their symptoms increase in severity and regularity; (myself included).

Like I say, these are facts. Demonstrable facts.

As for that 49 inch monitor. It's £1499! That's ridiculous. All the others are 32 inch or smaller, proving my point. TVs that are 42 inch or bigger are commonplace and cost a few hundred quid. You just can't get a monitor as big as the big TVs for a reasonable price, and even the unreasonably priced ones are rare.

Your counterpoint to my second point is, "it's not hard", really? That's exactly the arrogance that I spoke out against in my post. It's not hard for you... maybe it is for someone else. Or maybe it's not worth their time. You can't dispute my point here by claiming, "there's all these resources and I don't think it's hard", because it's still not as simple as "plug in, switch on". Which is what a lot of players want.

I appreciate the response, but I think you're wrong on those points, and I'm prepared to back up my claims as you can see. I agree gaming is down to personal preference, but moreso I think gamers need to accept these facts and stop trying to win points over each other. 

 

[IntenseFATE98]

6 minutes ago, BurnedChipmunk said:

 

Monitors most certainly do cause eye strain and other issues...

http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/computer-vision-syndrome#1
 

Here's the full academic papers on the issue, it's a PDF by the way.
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/MPR/article-full-text-pdf/0905F9948599
https://www.aoa.org/Documents/optometrists/effects-of-computer-use.pdf
http://www.orion-group.net/medicaljournal/pdf/332.pdf

This is a fact. Monitors cause eye strain and prolonged use of a computer causes 'computer vision syndrome' in more than 60% of people. Additionally those who suffer seizures, migraines, or other cluster-headache disorders find their symptoms increase in severity and regularity; (myself included).

Like I say, these are facts. Demonstrable facts.

As for that 49 inch monitor. It's £1499! That's ridiculous. All the others are 32 inch or smaller, proving my point. TVs that are 42 inch or bigger are commonplace and cost a few hundred quid. You just can't get a monitor as big as the big TVs for a reasonable price, and even the unreasonably priced ones are rare.

Your counterpoint to my second point is, "it's not hard", really? That's exactly the arrogance that I spoke out against in my post. It's not hard for you... maybe it is for someone else. Or maybe it's not worth their time. You can't dispute my point here by claiming, "there's all these resources and I don't think it's hard", because it's still not as simple as "plug in, switch on". Which is what a lot of players want.

I appreciate the response, but I think you're wrong on those points, and I'm prepared to back up my claims as you can see. I agree gaming is down to personal preference, but moreso I think gamers need to accept these facts and stop trying to win points over each other. 

 

 

Those articles don't speak for all people, I myself am proof for that, I've never had any problems with prolonged use. There are a lot of factors that affect that. Did you even see the specs of the monitor? I'm sorry but just comparing prices based on size is beyond stupid. And like I said, Samsung isn't the only option. You also completely ignored the part where I said you can buy the parts yourself and "get it built my someone" for a relatively cheaper price than pre-builts. 

[Dreakon13]

1 hour ago, IntenseFATE98 said:

 

Proprietary hardware limits what a dev can do, they're limited to one specific SKU. That's the biggest flaw of consoles. 

 

You cannot compare a laptop to a full PC/Console, they use completely different hardware to reduce power consumption. GTX 900 series especially was severely dumbed down on laptops. http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-950M-vs-Nvidia-GTX-950/m27713vs3510 A desktop 950 will easily outperform a PS4 in lower settings. 

 

I never referred to that persons comment, I said $500 taking into consideration a PS4 Pro costs $400 + $50-$60 for PS+. A PC will last longer if not as much a consoles typical life cycle, even if it doesn't and you did proper research, all you would need to upgrade in 3 years is the GPU. The GPU you already have will still have some resale value 3-5 years down the line, in terms of consoles, you would have to replace the entire system. What's better? A $400 console + $60 for PS+ every year and later spending another $400-500 for the latest console or $500-600 on a PC and a $150-300 (maybe more) GPU upgrade? If you're building from scratch, sure you need to buy the peripherals, but if you look out for sales and buy from various retailers and like you said, sites like ebay, you can save a lot of money. And no, you can't bring a monitor's price into this. You can still connect a PC to a TV. And no they're are not finicky, you might have used cheap cables. My HTPC has no problems with an HDMI on my Bravia, you're only mainly limited by the refresh rate. Most TV's have game mode to reduce latency and perform better for gameplay. "if you're upgrading the PC, it's not a $500 PC anymore." Same can be said when you buy a new gen console, it's not $400 anymore.

 

I'm not making 2+2=5, wtf is that analogy? You're saying AAA devs with a nearly unlimited budget have an excuse when a game has a shitty port? Indies, I would agree (most of them run better on PC anyways) but AAA devs have no excuse. It's pure laziness and favouritism towards consoles to make more $$$$. 

 

You lost me when the crux of your point suggests you need a PS4 Pro to play the latest games. ?

 

PC games are absolutely finicky with certain televisions/setups.  My "cheap cables" shouldn't prevent the audio from coming through my television for one game when 95% of the rest work fine.  Some games just aren't well equipped to handle more than one monitor... but that's my point, for all the customization and flexibility that PC offers, you're limited to what the games you play can actually manage.  I'll take a streamlined console over mixing and matching "supported features" with every new game I buy.  But that's just my preference.

 

You're literally saying optimization is as easy as flipping a switch.  If that were the case, the developers "laziness" wouldn't matter.  It's more complicated than you're making it out to be... which is generally the flaw in any PC vs console argument... people tend to over (or under)-embellish.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Dreakon13

[BurnedChipmunk]

Just now, IntenseFATE98 said:

Those articles don't speak for all people, I myself am proof for that, I've never had any problems with prolonged use. There are a lot of factors that affect that. Did you even see the specs of the monitor? I'm sorry but just comparing prices based on size is beyond stupid. And like I said, Samsung isn't the only option. You also completely ignored the part where I said you can buy the parts yourself and "get it built my someone" for a relatively cheaper price than pre-builts. 

 

All the people who smoke don't get lung cancer, and all the people who drink don't get cirrhosis of the liver... are they not linked either. These reports claim 60% of people or more get CVS from prolonged use of a monitor. That's a massive amount of people. Read the papers and you'll see that it's quite a serious issue to the point where some businesses that have office workers on PC every day could face needing to cover medical expenses because it'd be considered a workplace condition, similar to how miners who developed lung problems could sue the mining companies if they didn't cover their medical expenses.

I didn't need to see the specs of the monitor to know it's way too expensive. When PC gamers claim, "you can game on PC and it's cheaper than consoles" I don't think they had a $1500 monitor in mind. Samsung may not be the only option but the options are thin on the ground, so much so that when I wanted to upgrade I struggled to find anything of reasonable price over 27 inches. TVs however are half the price sometimes less than half.

And yes, I did completely ignore that you can buy the parts and "get it built by someone" option, because you can buy a broken PS4 on eBay and have it refurbished if you like. That doesn't make it the default option. Also that's still jumping through hoops, you still need to know what parts to buy, where to buy them, what's compatible, how much power it'll need, what cooling it'll need, you'll need to buy an operating system, so that's £120 for Windows (because you're not gaming on Linux are you)... now a PS4 will cost me £250 and even if I include the cost of the TV, I can get a decent 40 inch TV for around £300. Even if we call it £600 all in... you can't even buy the fucking monitor for that, and that's assuming you're going for one of those 32 inch monitors.

 

The fact is cost to entry for PC is an order of magnitude higher than it is for consoles and I'm sick of PC gamers lying to my fucking face and claiming it's not. I game on both, but I'm primarily a console gamer. I will openly admit the limits of a console but the PC gamers have attached their egos so entirely to PC gaming that they can't admit that the biggest flaw for PC gaming is it's damn expensive, confusing and requiring specialist knowledge to do, and if you don't possess that knowledge it's even more expensive while you pay people who do know that shit to do these steps for you.

[IntenseFATE98]

7 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

You lost me when the crux of your point suggests you need a PS4 Pro to play the latest games. 

 

PC games are absolutely finicky with certain televisions/setups.  My "cheap cables" shouldn't prevent the audio from coming through my television for one game when 95% of the rest work fine.  Some games just aren't well equipped to handle more than one monitor... but that's my point, for all the customization and flexibility that PC offers, you're limited to what the games you play can actually manage.  I'll take a streamlined console over mixing and matching "supported features" with every new game I buy.  But that's just my preference.

 

You're literally saying optimization is as easy as flipping a switch.  If that were the case, the developers "laziness" wouldn't matter.  It's more complicated than you're making it out to be... which is generally the flaw in any PC vs console argument... people tend to over (or under)-embellish.

 

I only considered the Pro as it's the latest console on the market, I could have considered the PS3 too but you would probably say that's not a fair comparision. Dunno what TV you're using but I've never had any problems in using my PC on a TV, even with a HT attached too. You can take a console if you want, idc, like I said it's personal preference. Optimization currently is way easier than what it was last gen, consoles and PC run on the same architecture now. PC needs a little extra effort to make the game run on all the different SKU's, porting from PC to console is easier than before, but console to PC requires a little extra effort which most devs aren't even putting. Some games like BF1, Destiny 2 are built from the ground up on both PC and consoles, while Arkham Knight was just a lazy port which ended up being horrible on PC.

 

3 minutes ago, BurnedChipmunk said:

 

All the people who smoke don't get lung cancer, and all the people who drink don't get cirrhosis of the liver... are they not linked either. These reports claim 60% of people or more get CVS from prolonged use of a monitor. That's a massive amount of people. Read the papers and you'll see that it's quite a serious issue to the point where some businesses that have office workers on PC every day could face needing to cover medical expenses because it'd be considered a workplace condition, similar to how miners who developed lung problems could sue the mining companies if they didn't cover their medical expenses.

I didn't need to see the specs of the monitor to know it's way too expensive. When PC gamers claim, "you can game on PC and it's cheaper than consoles" I don't think they had a $1500 monitor in mind. Samsung may not be the only option but the options are thin on the ground, so much so that when I wanted to upgrade I struggled to find anything of reasonable price over 27 inches. TVs however are half the price sometimes less than half.

And yes, I did completely ignore that you can buy the parts and "get it built by someone" option, because you can buy a broken PS4 on eBay and have it refurbished if you like. That doesn't make it the default option. Also that's still jumping through hoops, you still need to know what parts to buy, where to buy them, what's compatible, how much power it'll need, what cooling it'll need, you'll need to buy an operating system, so that's £120 for Windows (because you're not gaming on Linux are you)... now a PS4 will cost me £250 and even if I include the cost of the TV, I can get a decent 40 inch TV for around £300. Even if we call it £600 all in... you can't even buy the fucking monitor for that, and that's assuming you're going for one of those 32 inch monitors.

 

The fact is cost to entry for PC is an order of magnitude higher than it is for consoles and I'm sick of PC gamers lying to my fucking face and claiming it's not. I game on both, but I'm primarily a console gamer. I will openly admit the limits of a console but the PC gamers have attached their egos so entirely to PC gaming that they can't admit that the biggest flaw for PC gaming is it's damn expensive, confusing and requiring specialist knowledge to do, and if you don't possess that knowledge it's even more expensive while you pay people who do know that shit to do these steps for you.

 

Those papers aren't accurate at all, the research is usually done based on a small group of people, I know because I did one myself. You can't equate that to an entire population. There are many different factors that affect that. Like I said, if you don't want a monitor, you can still use a TV. You'll only be limited by the refresh rate on modern TV's. You can use sites like PCPartPicker to easily see what parts are in your budget, what the power consumption is, compatibility, where to buy etc. You don't need to spend 120quid on windows, you can get it for way cheaper on other sites, I got my genuine copy for $20.

 

"And yes, I did completely ignore that you can buy the parts and "get it built by someone" option, because you can buy a broken PS4 on eBay and have it refurbished if you like" That doesn't even make sense, in what world is that the same thing as getting a PC built yourself with new parts? The entry cost is high, no one's denying that, but it's much cheaper on the long term due to upgradability, that's all. PC Gamers don't have an ego at all, you're just generalizing based on some people, same can be said for console gamers "everyone is a 12yo who wants to bang your mom". It's not as expensive as people make it out to be, anything is confusing if you don't learn to use it, and no it's not expensive to get it built if you buy the parts.

 

I'm gonna stop now, I think I've said enough, all down to your preference. Good day!

 

[BurnedChipmunk]

20 minutes ago, IntenseFATE98 said:

Those papers aren't accurate at all, the research is usually done based on a small group of people, I know because I did one myself. You can't equate that to an entire population. There are many different factors that affect that. Like I said, if you don't want a monitor, you can still use a TV. You'll only be limited by the refresh rate on modern TV's. You can use sites like PCPartPicker to easily see what parts are in your budget, what the power consumption is, compatibility, where to buy etc. You don't need to spend 120quid on windows, you can get it for way cheaper on other sites, I got my genuine copy for $20.

 

"And yes, I did completely ignore that you can buy the parts and "get it built by someone" option, because you can buy a broken PS4 on eBay and have it refurbished if you like" That doesn't even make sense, in what world is that the same thing as getting a PC built yourself with new parts? The entry cost is high, no one's denying that, but it's much cheaper on the long term due to upgradability, that's all. PC Gamers don't have an ego at all, you're just generalizing based on some people, same can be said for console gamers "everyone is a 12yo who wants to bang your mom". It's not as expensive as people make it out to be, anything is confusing if you don't learn to use it, and no it's not expensive to get it built if you buy the parts.

 

I'm gonna stop now, I think I've said enough, all down to your preference. Good day!

 

 

Well I'm going to take peer reviews university papers over some guy on the internet saying he did the same study and they're not accurate.

 

Again, you move the goal posts in order to prove what exactly? I said PC gaming is too expensive and all you can say is, "if you jump through all these complicated hoops, it's actually a lot cheaper". So what? Is the PC industry just really shady and filled with shitty companies that charge 6 times what things are actually worth?

So we need to go to PCPartPicker to see what parts are in budget, then spend ages looking up which bits are which so we know what we're buying, hire someone to put it all together for us, go on a dodgy site you didn't name to buy Windows for about 1/8th the retail price for a genuine stolen copy of Windows. Or you could go to literally any major store, electronics shop, or online retailer and by a PS4 right now for the same price across the board. Go on tell me again how it's easy to build a PC for a reasonable price and I'll call you a fucking liar to you face in front of everyone here, because that's exactly what you'll be.

Well done at proving how simple it is to buy a gaming PC by actually proving how unintuitive it really is. 

[IntenseFATE98]

1 minute ago, BurnedChipmunk said:

 

Well I'm going to take peer reviews university papers over some guy on the internet saying he did the same study and they're not accurate.

 

Again, you move the goal posts in order to prove what exactly? I said PC gaming is too expensive and all you can say is, "if you jump through all these complicated hoops, it's actually a lot cheaper". So what? Is the PC industry just really shady and filled with shitty companies that charge 6 times what things are actually worth?

So we need to go to PCPartPicker to see what parts are in budget, then spend ages looking up which bits are which so we know what we're buying, hire someone to put it all together for us, go on a dodgy site you didn't name to buy Windows for about 1/8th the retail price for a genuine stolen copy of Windows. Or you could go to literally any major store, electronics shop, or online retailer and by a PS4 right now for the same price across the board. Go on tell me again how it's easy to build a PC for a reasonable price and I'll call you a fucking liar to you face in front of everyone here, because that's exactly what you'll be.

Well done at proving how simple it is to buy a gaming PC by actually proving how unintuitive it really is. 

 

Go ahead, idc. 

 

If you've never done it, how do you know it's complicated? Who said they charge 6 times more? You're making baseless assumptions. If you've never heard of PCPartPicker, you've clearly made 0 research while building your PC. I'm finding it hard to believe you even own a gaming PC at this point. You don't need to spend ages, again if you've never used it how would you know? Hiring someone is an option, it's not necessary. http://www.play-asia.com/microsoft-windows-10-pro-3264-bit-oem/13/709747 I guess every Vita, PS4 game etc on play asia is stolen too, oh boyyy.

 

Easy to make assumptions and cry that something is confusing or difficult when you've never tried it yourself