In which case, it's a completely unfair comparison - you're talking about making one system from scratch, as opposed to another system with already existing parts. Of course the system using already existing parts is going to be cheaper.

A person with an old PC could likewise use the same monitor and speakers with a new computer: My GeForce 9600 came with adapters to convert the DVI output to VGA, and the motherboard has the standard 3.5 mm jacks for sound output. Both the monitor and speakers from my old system could be used with my new system without any troubles.

Yes, I'm still using a monitor with a standard VGA cable - and it works great and runs at 1600x1200, which is plenty high enough for HD stuff, although I do get some letterboxing.

BUT - you are right, that's the comparisons people are making: They are comparing just the console box to the whole PC setup.



Actually, the two technologies are converging somewhat - today's video cards usually come with composite cables, which is the same as what your average console uses to connect to a TV. In addition, I'm seeing an increasing number of component and DVI inputs and outputs on all sorts of systems. I'm even beginning to see an increasing number of HD TVs with VGA inputs. The two technologies are in fact starting to converge, now that TVs are using resolutions similar to PC monitors, and now that, in order to process the digital signals, TVs actually need some real video processing power.

With the old analog TVs, all that was really needed was some capacitors, diodes, a crystal, and other basic components - It was just a radio connected to a tube. You don't even need an integrated circuit for them. Even when the remote control came out, you didn't need any more added circuitry than a cheap calculator.

With digital signals and HDTVs, you need very complex signal processing, conversion, decompression, and even decryption for protected content. Since it's already a much more complicated device, and since they already need to support multiple resolutions, you might as well throw in some PC resolutions and call it a product.

New video cards and new TVs actually work together quite well . . .

In fact, there are many devices coming out that are more like computer LCD monitors that happen to have a TV tuner built in and a remote control.

But every console comes with controllers; you can't separate the price of the controller from them. Additional accessories are usually bundled with the games that use them, so they're part of the game's cost. And the subscription service (should there be one) is a yearly cost, so it can't be compared with a fixed initial cost.



Yes, if you can upgrade your PC at all. Some OEM machines don't let you do more than maybe drop a videocard and some RAM in the box. The non-standard power supplies on some OEM machines don't let you add anything to the box. Remember: OEMs want you to buy a new computer from them, not upgrade your old machine. So expect to add on the cost of a power supply to that.

And then there are older machines like both of mine. If I were to do any significant CPU or RAM upgrade, I'd need a motherboard swap because the modern AMD chips do not support my older 939 socket. DDR2 RAM is the standard, but my motherboard is old enough that it can't use DDR2. So add on another $100 for a new motherboard.



Exactly. This market is called, "everyone not us." Nintendo owns this market, which is why they're making obscene money off of them.

How many grandparents play PC games? Contrast that to the number that play Wii games, and you'll understand.



Only if you exclude Wii games, which top out at $50 (except for those with bundled accessories).



My home theater system (720p LCD projector, 5.1 surround) cost about $3000. I bought it neither for my computer nor for my consoles, yet I have both connected to them. It doesn't belong to my computer, my consoles, my DVD player, or anything of the like. It was a stand-alone purchase that justified itself.

A monitor ultimately is for a computer. It has little value outside of that. By contrast, a home theater system has many uses; it is valuable outside of the context of an individual console.

I would like to say PC gaming is still the best in my opinion. But good quality games are maybe thinner on the ground. I certainly buy fewer than i used to.

I get annoyed when I go into retail outlets and the PC game titles are relegated to the back of beyond in the store. I can think of one such store i used to spend a fortune in that now has a handful of titles at the far back corner GRRRR!. I tend to buy online now unless i cant wait for the post to deliver and want a game as soon as its released (which has been known).

I love my PC which i upgrade every so often when my favourite new titles will no longer run comfortably, however i never buy top of the range hardware, I do have some patience and wait a few months till it becomes mid to low end in the scheme of things. The most upgraded item being the graphics card. Currently have an Nvidia 7600GT.

I love upgrading which you cant do with consoles. Completely self taught, its also much easier than it used to be.

I agree with all those who say you dont need top of the range kickass PC's.

I am so lucky the only game i have ever had problems with in a long time is "Dark Messiah Might and Magic". So far no probs with SoaSE or Galaxy Forge (crosses fingers of one hand while typing with other).

Indie gaming may very well outlive the big commercial interest in the PC, I think the PC will be with us a long time yet....

The point I'm making is that including the monitor in the price for a computer but not including a TV for an Xbox is not a fair comparison.



That's still a whole lot better than trying to upgrade consoles. Consoles want you to upgrade the whole thing as well.



The power supply, like pretty much everything else, is a replaceable unit in a PC. Although I actually haven't seen anybody use a proprietary one.



This is true. Any upgrades that require a motherboard upgrade are expensive. They are generally rare, however.



This is true. In fact, I wonder if it's not so much the Xbox and the PS3 that are a threat to the PC, but rather the Wii.

In THEORY, yes, but in practice, this argument simply doesn't hold up. I'd be surprised if less than 100% of people who own a console already didn't already own a TV when they bought a console. However, if you've never owned a PC before, you're not going to have a monitor just sitting around.

The point is, the probability that you have to buy a monitor for your PC is a lot higher than the probability you have to buy a TV for your console.




I'm completely ignoring the Wii since it's such totally different market that any attempt at a comparison looks incredibly stupid. It's like trying to compare a Ferrari to an amusement park ride.


Mad Cat

But it IS a fair comparison; YOUR comparison is the one that is unfair. By your logic, we should NOT factor cost of the keyboard into the price of the PC because most standard console sets only come with ONE controller while the PC comes with TWO (mouse AND keyboard).




Not necessarily, and even when they are, they can be more expensive. It's the one main reason I've put off upgrading my PC: to do so would require that I spend an extra $125 on what would otherwise be a $75 PSU simply because Dell doesn't make it's PSU's and motherboards to retail specifications.


Mad Cat

Oh? The only significant difference between a 19" LCD TV and a 19" LCD computer monitor is one has a TV tuner built into it.

As for the Dell thing..that's what you get when you buy OEM. If you buy something from a manufacturer that cuts corners and markets to old people that just want to surf the tubes you shouldn't expect cost-effective upgrading.

It is a fair comparison.

If you need Product X to use Product Y, and Product X has no viable uses without Product Y, then Product X is clearly just a component of Product Y. Therefore it makes sense to include the price of X in the cost of getting Y.

A computer case, for example. You might use it as a paperweight without the rest of a PC's components. But that's about it. It has no value without the other components of a computer. And the other components cannot be used without it (unless you need to electrocute yourself). Therefore its cost should be folded into the total cost of the computer.

A television however, has uses outside of a console. The console needs a TV, but the TV does not need a console. A TV without a console is still a functioning piece of machinery that a person would reasonably purchase and make significant use of. A monitor without a computer is not.

That's how the logic works.



Yes, but it's very easy (no messy installation of hardware and drivers) and is only necessary once every 5-8 years. PC upgrades are more frequent.



The Wii is a threat to everything in the videogame industry. If you don't think you're competing with the Wii in the industry, you're deluding yourself.



The proper car analogy is Ferrari vs. VW Bug. We know which sells more, and we know why. Too bad that most of the industry is trying to peddle Ferraris...

Didn't want to take 30-45 minutes to read all the previous posts, so don't know if this has already been said or not.

PC Gaming isn't dying, the INDUSTRY for it is, though. More and more PC gamers are deviating away from simply buying a game, but now we're modding, recreating, and tampering with all the files to make our own games. There will be more games, for sure, but less consumers as time goes on. People get stuck on specific games that they spend months and years making mods for. Eventually a few of them will go on to the video game industry itself and begin making brand new games, but the others will stay and wait on these to release so they can tamper with them more. It's an endless cycle, and will probably (hopefully), increase as games become more and more customizable.

There's different types of games in the PC market, and a different demographic plays them. I love strategy and sandbox-type building games, which are almost exclusively the domain of the PC, and probably will be for a long time.

PC gaming isn't going to die anytime soon, but it is more of a niche audience than console gaming ever was.

I wish it would die already so we could all go do something worthwhile with our lives.

Simply put, the reason why PC gaming is suffering is due to Microsoft's desire to pimp out their beloved X-Box, offering exclusive libraries and focus upon graphics and twitchy gameplay over any substantial content. They rely on a consumer base that will buy a game, either drool happily at the focus upon graphics, or if they are dissatisfied with how the hype turned out they will buy into a new game's empty promises and hype as some kind of balm to alleviate the hurt from the last overglorified shooter clone.

Rinse and repeat.

Fable? Had to be axed down for the X-Box capabilities, as what was originally intended would have fit upon most PCs quite easily.

Oblivion? The over-hyped Radiant AI had to take a lobotomy because the X-Box couldn't handle it, and to make the PC version with the real Radiant AI would have made a difference console owners would have been howling over.

BioShock? Don't get me started...

PC titles are now being subject to mistreatment given the focus upon consoles by many developers. For instance, Fallout was a great old-school pen and paper CRPG, designed to be that way by the original developers. The "new" developers of a sequel aren't interested at all in keeping to the same kind of quality and depth, but instead are offering a flavoring of their current market design, simply because they didn't want to take the effort of making a setting of their own.

How is Bethesda making Fallout 3? Into "Oblivion with Guns", their own words after they promised back at their acquisition of the title that it "would not be Oblivion with guns". Yes, a pen and paper RPG has been turned into a FPS, and the developer shamelessly lies about it.

The gaming press is partially to blame, because they eat up every word the developer says without having any spine to call them on their lies, hype, and broken promises. So far, the X-Box has made a liar out of Peter Molyneaux, Bethesda Softworks, and pretty much every other PC/X-Box developer out there.

So if you want to know who is blame for this mess, it's Microsoft and their monopolistic attitude, again. Remember back when their earlier versions of MS-DOS and Windows would purposefully break competitor's software designed for those OS? They are doing the same thing for hardware upgrades, and now gaming.

Cherish your PC developers, because they are willing to offer quality instead of cashing in on shiny, vapid gameplay.

Except you don't actually need a brand new X to use product Y. You might already have product A from old system B (my case), or you might have a KVM switch (my work's case), or you might even be able to use product Y with your home entertainment center (Alfonse's case). You imply that product X is a brand new product that needs to be bought, but that's simply not always true.



You can grab a PC from the store with the OS pre-installed, which is the same experience. In fact, very few people actually bother to install the OS and hardware from scratch.

I think it's only slightly justified to include a monitor in the price of the computer. It's pretty much just second nature that makes me say "yes, the cost of the monitor should be included". But OTOH, it's entirely possible to run a computer from a HDTV with little or no extra cost (if you do your research).

In addition, for what it's worth, I'm one of the few who actually includes a TV in his console gaming total (yes, my TV is solely for the use of my PS2 (and someday, PS3)).

I think they need to start requiring logic in high school.

A computer has more than one use, therefore a monitor for a computer not directly purchased for the sole sake of gaming is just as irrelevant to the cost of PC gaming as your wide screen shit resolution TV is for your shit resolution console gaming.

The primary function of my video card is to play games, same with the sound card. Everything else is just part of the package necessary for normal use with work and other applications. Even the video and sound card are used more often outside of gaming than in. I watch movies and listen to music more often than I play games. I just wouldn't spend as much on them if that were all I did with them.

The cost of gaming in particular for my PC was less than $200, I need the drives, processors and memory for work, and onboard video is insufficient for smooth movie playback. The sound card I could have passed on, but I'd still have needed a fairly weighty video card. You can't buy a new console for less than I spend to make a general purpose computer into a gaming computer, and you can't get a comparable setup from consoles regardless. My 1600x1200 native resolution monitor eats $2k TV's for breakfast.

Also, the TV is less of a normal household item than you think. I won't bother with one unless I get a life and need one for other peoples use. I watch TV on my computer, it possesses vastly superior audio and visual quality for its price.

Well, what we are talking about here is highly situational: How much it costs to upgrade is largely going to depend on what you already have. Truth be known, this is a hard thing to generalize because it's a case by case basis. In addition, personal tastes also factor into the decision. I personally don't care about sound, so it's very unlikely I'll buy a sound card, even for gaming.

So this is more a statistical argument than a true logical argument, as there are a lot of possible situations. The truth is, when it comes down to it, it's going to depend on personal preference and the cost of upgrading the existing system.

Why aren't "graphics and twitchy gameplay" substantial content? Just because you don't like games with time pressure doesn't mean that they aren't substantial.



That's their choice, though. I mean, Bethesda knows how to make Elder Scrolls games. Indeed, that's pretty much all they make. They could try to make Fallout 3 more "pen and paper" and fail miserably at it because they don't know how to make that kind of game. Or they can make Fallout 3 gameplay-wise similar to a game type that they do know how to make and make (presumably) well.

Would you rather have a generally crappy Fallout 3 or a Fallout 3 that you happen to not like, but other people might?



Yes, but you must have one. It may have been from an old computer, but it is fundamentally associated with a computer. You paid money for that monitor at some point, and therefore the cost of it is part and parcel of the cost of your computer.



If you do, you lose the pricing argument. Low-cost Dell or HP or whatever machines are not good gaming machines. And mid-cost OEMs are in the $1000 range.

So pick one: either you get the more expensive off-the-shelf PC, or you have to build one yourself.





Hmm, making disparaging remarks about the opposing side. Maybe you need to remember what a logical argument is, and what rhetoric is.

Oh, and I never said I was making a logical argument for anything. Only a reasonable one.



No, it's pretty standard. Maybe among some people, but for the vast majority of people, it's as much a part of a home as the refrigerator.

Actually, somebody else paid for my monitor. My old monitor was a hand down from my parents, and my new one is a gift from somebody who had bought a new LCD one.

In any case, I bet that TVs are generally paid for. Last I heard, stores don't give them away for free. Whether it's "part and parcel" is a meaningless phrase.

Again, it's largely situational and depends on what components you already have on hand.



You can go for the cheapest Inspiron from Dell's website, use their customize option and slap in a GeForce 8300, and you'll have something that will play nearly all games for $779. Not a really high end gaming machine, but it's a quad core with 2 GB of RAM, so it's certainly not shabby either. No messing around with building a system, either, since they do it at Dell.

Monitors ain't that expensive. Especially if you use a TV tuner, it'll be less expensive than a TV would be, though it would probably be smaller, due to the obvious intent of being used for text rather than video (does make monitors all pretty-much HD, though, unlike TV's).

Monitors are also low intensity, designed for close viewing. Aperature size is relative to distance.

Alfonse, shit resolution is a factual statement within the frame of thinking that 20 year old technology equivalences are shit. If you have a cell phone the size of a car battery, you have a shitty cell phone. That the television industry as a whole is populated entirely by overpriced shit due to a lack of media requirements, does not change that TV's have shit resolution. TV's are not widespread either, not anymore than PC's are anyway. We're up around 70% household computer access right now, TV's are around 99%, but that's just the US. The majority of households without a PC in this country are elderly without children around. The younger generations are much more likely to have a PC. For the target of game manufacturers, they aren't very far off at all.

On to the logic statement.

The argument that all extraneous components to a console are needed for other things besides console gaming. A valid argument, they are useful without the console.

Logically, one that isn't an idiot would then discount all costs incurred in PC ownership that are not solely used for gaming. Since you can all type, and generally form coherent sentences, I seriously doubt than even the worst offenders are dumb enough to not grasp the alternative uses for a PC while partaking in one of them. You cannot be ignorant of the other uses either do to the aforementioned current activity.

With all the information and intellect necessary to reach the conclusion, my conclusion is that you're unable to apply logical standards. If anyone prefers to be an idiot savant capable of arguing on the internet and nothing else, I'll buy that though.

No, Psychoak is right: to go from general use PC to gaming PC all you REALLY need is a video card, just like to get a console all you REALLY need is to buy the basic console set. The sound card and surround speakers are a bonus, much like the home theatre system is a bonus to the console.




A GeForce 8300 is, for all practical gaming purposes, next to useless. Those low-end cards are designed more for people who want to watch hi-def movies or perhaps much, much older games on their PC. They are NOT designed to run current generation games and so cannot in any way be considered to be "gaming" machines.

Also, as I pointed out, buying an OEM practically makes upgrades to the system near impossible as many retail products aren't compatible with the OEM parts.


Mad Cat

I think the thing that bothers me most about this thread is the ennui being exhibited by 'teh hard kore gamz0rs' who think that if you don't know how to build a computer, from scratch, in less than sixty seconds with your penis tied behind your back, you don't deserve to be a gamer.

This elitist attitude does more to drive away users than I think you all realize, and is the biggest reason why I hope PC gaming dies -

You're a bunch of pricks and I want your feelings to be hurt.

thanks for contributing to the thread!




ahahhahahahaha

Can't be any worse than my 6800, which could play most games before I retired it only a couple of months ago. It probably would've struggled with the new DirectX 10 games, but it could certainly play all of the DirectX 9 games I threw at it.

I imagine the 8300, being two generations newer than the 6800, would certainly perform as least as well as the 6800.

But then again, I could be wrong. My 6800 was a 256 MB card, which pretty much top of the line when they were first released (I got it a few years later, when they were cheaper), and I was surprised that most of the 8600s and below only offered that much. I wanted to upgrade the memory on the card as well as the chipset, so I held out until the 9600s came out with good reviews and came with 512 MB.

In any case, Dell offers higher end cards as options when customizing. The 8600 is also an option, as well as a couple ATI cards. Sounds like their systems are a lot more flexible than you claim they are.

Generations mean zip-zero as far as performance. Some of the 7s and 6s beat the midrange 8s. They're relative to each other, not other generations.

Dell systems use proprietary motherboards, proprietary CPU coolers, proprietary PSUs, and proprietary cases. The offerings of 8600s and quad-cores are a pretty good way to bilk people with no hardware knowledge out of their money, quad-cores are next to useless for most gaming and the 8600 is a budget card now. Any gamer worth his salt will tell you that for $130, a 9600GT is the best deal out there budget-wise, but it's not profitable for Dell to put those in there unless you pay $1500. They are one step above Macs as far as upgrading and as far as I'm concerned if you want it prebuilt go take the parts to a shop.