Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,112
Ps5 and Xbox ponzi scheme. Like all of the games for both systems are year old PC games.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
10x $500 is $5000. What ignoramus would spend $5k on a gaming PC? You would need to buy the most overpriced scalper products to reach that amount.
^^^Someone who is [H]ard.
And no, you don't need to pay scalper prices to get there. I didn't. I've had many PC's over the years well beyond $5,000. It's pretty easy when you spent nearly $3,000 on a pair of Titan X's and had a $1,000 Extreme Edition CPU. Your at $4,000 without even having a case, power, supply, motherboard, etc.
Turns out, getting to nearly 5K wasn't that hard.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/TyWLqp
Granted, you can take off some from the RTX 3090 if you bought it at MSRP, but I didn't include cooling here. I've got at least $800 in watercooling hardware in my machine. I didn't include fans or other small incidental items that drive the price up. Again, this is without monitor, keyboard or mouse.
^^^
There's a PC for every budget.
To say that a PC is more expensive to own than a console, is like saying owning a truck costs more than owning a Mustang GT. There are cheap trucks and expensive trucks, ranging from a nissan hardbody to a Belaz 75710 dump truck. But there's really only one type of Mustang GT.
Bad analogy I know, but I didn't spend much time to think of a better one, and the point still gets across when you assume $$$ spent == the perf you get and that trucks can do more things than cars can.
Really? Literally anyone?Consoles are cheaper, which is cool, but anyone who has the option to play on a UW display or a LG OLED, on a PC, is never going to pick a console over a PC.
30-60 fps is unplayable for me; let alone the terrible graphics; at the worst, it just feels laggy. I don't want to feel like I'm in a powerpoint slide. At least money spent on hardware goes to your gaming experience, not a 'gaming network' which should be free.
Lets not pretend the shops aren't massive ad-blocks generating revenue... and worse even probably takes a cut of the sale. Paying for that privilege... smh.
Like the old saying goes.. buy cheap, buy twice.
"free" depending on the platform 10%-30% (like for the PS/MS store) of the money you spent on games on them goes to them, competition and seldom usage for many do not let them charge a subscription.It's not odd. It's plain and simple. Steam, GOG, Battle.Net, EA Origin, etc is free and doesn't charge you a subscription fee. How is that complicated? What service is the PS store or MS store providing you other than charging you money for using their product?
That's not how PC gaming works. It's not a single market. No single entity owns it. Sony and Nintendo could sell their games on their own store on PC and it would still have to compete with Steam, Epic, and Origin. You don't even need to stick with Windows, you can even port games to Mac and Linux as well. If consoles were to die then we'd have more competition not more monopoly. Consoles are the monopoly because the only way consoles survive is with exclusives. Exclusives aren't good for consumers.Look, we get it. You hate consoles. You want PCs to have a total monopoly in gaming and to kill choice in the market.
Microsoft just attempted to double the price of playing games online for the Xbox, and you're defending consoles? You were about to pay $120 a year to be able to play Dark Souls 3 online. The game itself costs $60, and you pay for the internet connection every month. Sony now charges $70 for a remaster of Demon Souls which is an 11 year old game. Stop defending the console industry and it's anti-consumer practices. Someone in 2014 could build an i5 2500k with a GTX 970 and still be able to play Cyberpunk 2077, while the PS4 can't. The best thing Sony can do is refund your money and remove the game from their digital store.It's not enough for you to simply say you prefer PC gaming; you genuinely believe you have the only right answer, and want to force your views on others. It's tired, it's narrow-minded, and it's only going to galvanize those of us who get plenty of enjoyment and value from consoles.
I would imagine it is a bit more complex than that, exclusives can mean cheap (if not free) capital and marketing to devs that would have an hard time to get it otherwise in some case (or at least theoretically) as well as simpler/optimised game that can run well for less dev cost (at least theoretically), would a customer in the market for a forza/gran turismo game was hurt or gained from the the Microsoft/Sony exclusive war on that flagship product on that market for example, did a flight sim enthusiast hurt or helped by Microsoft making a cloud flagship product like Flight Sim 2020 (would they have done it without the concept of making it a pc/xbox exclusive)That's not how PC gaming works. It's not a single market. No single entity owns it. Sony and Nintendo could sell their games on their own store on PC and it would still have to compete with Steam, Epic, and Origin. You don't even need to stick with Windows, you can even port games to Mac and Linux as well. If consoles were to die then we'd have more competition not more monopoly. Consoles are the monopoly because the only way consoles survive is with exclusives. Exclusives aren't good for consumers.
The monitor and speakers are costs that console users would also pay. Their monitor is a TV, which is what I also play my PC games on, and could cost $200 - $2000+.My rig is about $5,000.
$1000 for the monitor
$1000 for the speakers
$1200 for the mobo, cpu, ram
$800 for the GPU
$1100 for hard drives and SSD's
$250 for the sound card
$150 for the case
$500 for the cooler, fans, controller and leds.
View attachment 321784
Great, one more reason for hardware price (scalping) to be more in demand/expensive.And they say PC gaming is expensive
Agreed, though we do still need to get Bloodborne moved over to PC sooner than later!That's not how PC gaming works. It's not a single market. No single entity owns it. Sony and Nintendo could sell their games on their own store on PC and it would still have to compete with Steam, Epic, and Origin. You don't even need to stick with Windows, you can even port games to Mac and Linux as well. If consoles were to die then we'd have more competition not more monopoly. Consoles are the monopoly because the only way consoles survive is with exclusives. Exclusives aren't good for consumers.
hmm, sounds a bit like Corporatism at work with yet another megacorp screwing everyone over until public backlash made them step back for fear of looking back (aka, losing sales).Microsoft just attempted to double the price of playing games online for the Xbox, and you're defending consoles? You were about to pay $120 a year to be able to play Dark Souls 3 online. The game itself costs $60, and you pay for the internet connection every month. Sony now charges $70 for a remaster of Demon Souls which is an 11 year old game. Stop defending the console industry and it's anti-consumer practices. Someone in 2014 could build an i5 2500k with a GTX 970 and still be able to play Cyberpunk 2077, while the PS4 can't. The best thing Sony can do is refund your money and remove the game from their digital store.
You know damn well what I mean; please don't pretend otherwise. It's about having a choice — as in a real choice — in the kind of platform you use to play. Yeah, it would be better to have multiple store options on a given console, but I don't want to have to wade through a PC operating system or be confined to generic hardware just to play a game. Console exclusives can suck, but a game truly optimized for a narrow set of hardware can provide experiences you won't necessarily get from a PC title that has to run on everything from a $500 Best Buy clearance special to a $5,000 custom rig.That's not how PC gaming works. It's not a single market. No single entity owns it. Sony and Nintendo could sell their games on their own store on PC and it would still have to compete with Steam, Epic, and Origin. You don't even need to stick with Windows, you can even port games to Mac and Linux as well. If consoles were to die then we'd have more competition not more monopoly. Consoles are the monopoly because the only way consoles survive is with exclusives. Exclusives aren't good for consumers.
Microsoft just attempted to double the price of playing games online for the Xbox, and you're defending consoles? You were about to pay $120 a year to be able to play Dark Souls 3 online. The game itself costs $60, and you pay for the internet connection every month. Sony now charges $70 for a remaster of Demon Souls which is an 11 year old game. Stop defending the console industry and it's anti-consumer practices. Someone in 2014 could build an i5 2500k with a GTX 970 and still be able to play Cyberpunk 2077, while the PS4 can't. The best thing Sony can do is refund your money and remove the game from their digital store.
The whole point of exclusives on consoles is to get you to buy the hardware, because that game only exists on that hardware. While you're at it you might as well buy Fallout 5 or Far Cry 7, since you now have this machine. Exclusives don't make the real money, the 30% they get from 3rd party sales do. The best selling exclusive game is Wii Sports at 90 million sales which is not even close to Minecrafts 200 million.I would imagine it is a bit more complex than that, exclusives can mean cheap (if not free) capital and marketing to devs that would have an hard time to get it otherwise in some case (or at least theoretically) as well as simpler/optimised game that can run well for less dev cost (at least theoretically), would a customer in the market for a forza/gran turismo game was hurt or gained from the the Microsoft/Sony exclusive war on that flagship product on that market for example, did a flight sim enthusiast hurt or helped by Microsoft making a cloud flagship product like Flight Sim 2020 (would they have done it without the concept of making it a pc/xbox exclusive)
I don't understand this, for I'm no console peasant. How are digital purchases trapped on a PS4? You couldn't transfer that to another PS4?Unfortunately, you could argue that consoles are not future proof either. E.g. PS3->PS4 = lost games. I got a bunch of games trapped on my PS4 account because my optical drive broken on my PS4 (LOL) so I stupidly bought digital games there, which are now worthless. I guess you could also say the build quality of the console, and the ability to do something elementary like removing dust, is difficult, is also a bad thing compared to how easy it is on a PC.
Don't start that again, we had a thread locked because of it. No more politics.hmm, sounds a bit like Corporatism at work with yet another megacorp screwing everyone over until public backlash made them step back for fear of looking back (aka, losing sales).
Demon Souls might end up on PC because the sales aren't so hot. The original sold like 1.7 million and I'm hearing not such hot sales for the PS5 version. If people really wanted to play Demon Souls then they could have done so on the much cheaper and more available PS3 version. I played Demon Souls on PC a few years ago, so it isn't hard to do. They even got online play working when Sony removed it on the PS3. So yes, I see a PC version being released eventually. Also the PS5 version plays just like the PS3 version, down to its faults. So it's just a graphics upgrade, not a gameplay upgrade. They didn't even bother to finish the DLC that was suppose to be released on the PS3 version.Demon's Souls does look fun, but not $70 fun - also, we have yet another exclusive that really needs to get moved to PC; at least the silver-lining is that it will be highly optimized for the PS5, it's just too bad there are no PS5 consoles available at this point, and having to buy yet another console, ugh...
As Gamers Nexus put it, the PS5 is a mid range to high end PC from 5 years ago. Their words, not mine.but the PS5 (despite its current availability) does have some decent hardware in making it semi-competitive against PC gaming at that mid-range GTX 1060-level (if one does nothing but game).
Can't fault consoles for something that's happening on PC. At least one could acquire a PC for a reasonable price if they avoid RTX and AMD's RX 6000 hardware.I would say the new consoles actually have some decent hardware in them, but again, they can't be found anywhere, and they are absolutely not worth the scalper prices available now.
Then again, GPUs are going for insane prices on PCs now, so talk about being between a rock and a [H]ard place.
That choice is an illusion. Consoles are now running x86 Ryzen CPU with RDNA2.0 graphics. It's a PC without Windows installed. You can't even run a word processor on it. It's a walled garden that's limiting your choice, not expanding it. What difference would there be if Microsoft made the Xbox Series into a Windows PC? You would at least run Windows applications and even print.You know damn well what I mean; please don't pretend otherwise. It's about having a choice — as in a real choice — in the kind of platform you use to play.
Doom Eternal. That's one well optimized game. You could run that on a toaster if that toaster was running x86 and Windows.Console exclusives can suck, but a game truly optimized for a narrow set of hardware can provide experiences you won't necessarily get from a PC title that has to run on everything from a $500 Best Buy clearance special to a $5,000 custom rig.
You do know that Microsoft screwed up before even the Xbox One was released by preventing used games? It's much easier to screw over console users when they're locked to your garden.Did I say I was defending Microsoft's price hike, or CDPR's botched Cyberpunk 2077 launch? No, I wasn't. You can like consoles in general without explicitly endorsing every practice associated with them, just as I don't fault PC gaming because of Valve/Epic abuses or rampant cheating.
Anything wrong with being correct?You can't fathom the notion that someone enjoys a platform you don't like, and will contort yourself to insist that someone is having fun the "wrong" way.
Those drawbacks are very expensive. If Microsoft did enact their $120 extortion price, then you'd pay $120 per year to play games online. Someone at Microsoft forgot they just released a new console and would deter people from buying it if they knew they had to pay $120 per year to use it. Microsoft will eventually double the price of Xbox Live Gold, once the Xbox Series consoles are established. Either that or Microsoft will remove it and merge it with Game Pass and force you to pay either way. You don't have a choice to go with Gabe Newell Game Pass or Tim Sweeney Game Pass. You're forced to pay or don't play. You don't have a choice. You never had a choice if you bought a console.What's the problem with accepting that consoles can offer their own value, even if this includes some drawbacks?
But... you're not correct. (I'm not going to get into specific issues at this point, as it's clear you're not interested in an honest conversation.)Anything wrong with being correct?
Those drawbacks are very expensive. If Microsoft did enact their $120 extortion price, then you'd pay $120 per year to play games online.
Not so sure exactly what you respond mean relative to what I wrote, that in line with my point, the amount of money put in them or the very existence of those games would not be certain if they were not financed as flag ship to help console sales, it is not fully obvious they hurt the consumer of those games (the claim being they are not good for the consumer) if I am a consumer of gran turismo type of race sim, did the concept of exclusive was not good for me ? (maybe obviously, but I am not sure of that at all, maybe I had better game than without it)The whole point of exclusives on consoles is to get you to buy the hardware, because that game only exists on that hardware. While you're at it you might as well buy Fallout 5 or Far Cry 7, since you now have this machine. Exclusives don't make the real money, the 30% they get from 3rd party sales do. The best selling exclusive game is Wii Sports at 90 million sales which is not even close to Minecrafts 200 million.
Yes and I imagine much easier to attract developpement capital if you can guarantee a fully locked garden to them. There is a balance of good minus to most things, including this.You do know that Microsoft screwed up before even the Xbox One was released by preventing used games? It's much easier to screw over console users when they're locked to your garden.
Yes and I imagine much easier to attract developpement capital if you can guarantee a fully locked garden to them. There is a balance of good minus to most things, including this.You do know that Microsoft screwed up before even the Xbox One was released by preventing used games? It's much easier to screw over console users when they're locked to your garden.
On their video the PS5 had a performance similar to a 1060 on a 2019 game (DMC5) and to a 1070 Ti on another 2019 game (Borderlands 3), and outperformed a 1080/2060 on a 2020 game (Dirt 5, PS5 119 fps vs 108 fps on that PC).Gamers Nexus did a video that shows that the PS5 is equivalent to a GTX 1060, 1070 Ti, and 1080. If you avoid buying Nvidia's RTX or AMD's RX 6000 cards it's certainly doable.
Game | Release | Comparable GPU | Link |
DMC5 | 2019, March | 1060 | Gamers Nexus |
Borderlands 3 | 2019, September | 1070 Ti | Gamers Nexus |
Dirt 5 | 2020, November | 1080 (PS5 119 fps vs 108 fps PC) | Gamers Nexus |
Watch Dogs Legion | 2020, November | 2060/S | Digital Foundry |
Hitman 3 | 2021, January | 2060S | Digital Foundry |
AC Valhalla | 2020, November | 2070/S | Digital Foundry |
Gears 5 | 2020, November | 2070S / 2080 | Digital Foundry |
CoD BO Cold War | 2020, November | 2080 | Digital Foundry |
The monitor and speakers are costs that console users would also pay. Their monitor is a TV, which is what I also play my PC games on, and could cost $200 - $2000+.
Speakers, they could use the TV's speakers, they could get a sound bar, they could use a headset, they could have a 5.1-9.2 surround system - $0 - $5000.
I think a realistic gaming rig cost is 2x-3x console price.
This, 100%To be clear, if you want top experience, PC is the way to go. When on a budget, and depending on preferences, a console might be good value for the hardware they pack.
You can get 6 years out of a console before it's outdated, or you can use a $1000 PC for 10 -12years (with 2-3 GPU upgrades, depending on your tastes) ;only the hardcore need to touch their gaming PC yearly
I'm not a fan of Digital Foundry, at least not Digital Foundry for the past 5 years. I felt that Gamers Nexus did a better job matching PC settings to console while also showing the frame time better. Assassins Creed Valhalla for example doesn't support Ray-Tracing, like most games on PS5, and instead of saying RTX 2070 you could say GTX 1080. Hitman 3 has no Ray-Tracing and therefore GTX 1070. Of the games on that list that support Ray-Tracing, it's Gears 5, Cold War, and Watch Dogs Legion. Using RTX as a comparison makes sense with those games. In games like Cold War, Digital Foundry couldn't even lower some PC settings to match while in other games Digital Foundry couldn't find a high enough setting to match PS5, which matches what Gamers Nexus found with their tests. Though Gamers Nexus did show that the PS5 has horrible frame time issues compared to PC. Games like to stutter a lot on PS5.On their video the PS5 had a performance similar to a 1060 on a 2019 game (DMC5) and to a 1070 Ti on another 2019 game (Borderlands 3), and outperformed a 1080/2060 on a 2020 game (Dirt 5, PS5 119 fps vs 108 fps on that PC).
Broadening the data range and including Digital Foundry comparisons of consoles to PC you can see the newer games take better advantage of the newer hardware, which is to be expected.
You can get an above-ground pool, and go swimming, or save a bit more to get an in-ground pool. Both let you go swimming ....
Exclusives aren't really a good thing for consumers, but I understand why consoles buy games; to force people to buy consoles. I have a PS4 Pro for the FFVII remake as well thanks to this... (paid 450 to play 1 game, so screw exclusives). I wish it was on the PC, it would look and play much better... I have never played 'The Order 1886', but I guarantee it would look much nicer on a PC even with a cheap port. I can only imagine how Halo 5 would look on PC. Ironically, most game studios probably spend countless hours (CDPR) pulling the settings back, and even downscaling hi-res models from PC levels just to make it playable on crappy console HW. Certain genre's of game don't even exist on consoles, like Moba/MMO.
That being said, I admit there's a time and a place, and equation for console gaming. For me specifically, anywhere from 180-265 days playing per 3 years means I should spend top dollar relative to what I can spend rationally for my enjoyment, so definitely not a console. Not everyone has that same equation, but lets not pretend that any console game looks half as good as a the same game with an 2000x/RTX rendering it, and further; lets not pretend that 30-60 fps is anywhere as enjoyable as 144. Anyone's eyes can see the difference, and before you whine about TV or movies, stop comparing input fps to passive fps; its not the right way to compare it. If it doesn't bother you, see my analogy about pools in line one.
Consoles are worth it for some, I'll never doubt that.
This, 100%
To add to what T4rd said:You can get an above-ground pool, and go swimming, or save a bit more to get an in-ground pool. Both let you go swimming ....
Exclusives aren't really a good thing for consumers, but I understand why consoles buy games; to force people to buy consoles. I have a PS4 Pro for the FFVII remake as well thanks to this... (paid 450 to play 1 game, so screw exclusives). I wish it was on the PC, it would look and play much better... I have never played 'The Order 1886', but I guarantee it would look much nicer on a PC even with a cheap port. I can only imagine how Halo 5 would look on PC. Ironically, most game studios probably spend countless hours (CDPR) pulling the settings back, and even downscaling hi-res models from PC levels just to make it playable on crappy console HW. Certain genre's of game don't even exist on consoles, like Moba/MMO.
That being said, I admit there's a time and a place, and equation for console gaming. For me specifically, anywhere from 180-265 days playing per 3 years means I should spend top dollar relative to what I can spend rationally for my enjoyment, so definitely not a console. Not everyone has that same equation, but lets not pretend that any console game looks half as good as a the same game with an 2000x/RTX rendering it, and further; lets not pretend that 30-60 fps is anywhere as enjoyable as 144. Anyone's eyes can see the difference, and before you whine about TV or movies, stop comparing input fps to passive fps; its not the right way to compare it. If it doesn't bother you, see my analogy about pools in line one.
Consoles are worth it for some, I'll never doubt that.
This, 100%
Microsoft has been terrible for the last 7 years or so? No clear direction, have no idea what they are doing. Lets try this and backtrack on that.
They have simply lost focus and don't know what they are doing along with a clear direction on where they are going.
Yes I am using a Windows PC but for gaming, I LOVED my PS4 when I had it.
It isn't unplayable at 30 fps but it would be significantly better at >90 and max graphics settings. That's the whole point. I don't just play games that high fps (see ffvii remake). Just appreciate it when it can run at optimal settings.
Starting to lose the plot by gushing over exclusives, and the "you don't play for fun" (lol?). Yeah some games on consoles are great, and maybe for some they're worth owning a console for. But the performance of the same game on a PC is always going to be far better, which is the whole point I was making.