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.

So is having a mid to high end 8 series video card. Are we playing GalCiv 2 or Crysis?

Let's compare a GeForce 8600 GT (available for some Dell Inspirons) to the Xbox 360:

GPU clock:
Xbox 360: 500 MHz
GeForce 8600: 540 MHz

GPU memory:
Xbox 360: 10 MB (Is this really supposed to play games??)
GeForce 8600: 256 MB

Regular memory:
Xbox 360: 512 MB
PC from Dell: 2 GB
. . . although I should note that the PC uses a larger OS, which offsets some of that.

Shader pipelines:
Xbox 360: 48
GeForce 8600: 32
Okay, a bit more in the shader side, but not gonna really kill performance.

With a 1450 MHz shader clock on the 8600, that's about 46 billion shader operations per second for the PC, and the 360 claims 48 billion, so they're pretty close.

So for a bit higher price for the video card, you can get a lower end Dell PC with about the same power as the 360.

If you push closer to the $1000 range, their XPS 420s can be outfitted with 8800 GTs, which will easily beat the Xbox 360.

Granted, both systems probably cost a bit more than a basic just-the-xbox, but you are getting a system that can do more than just play games.



Which is precisely why I recently upgraded to one . It is, however, overkill for most games, save for some of the newest DirectX 10 ones. DirectX 10 support is the primary reason I bought it.



Ah, so there are options for the average joe that doesn't want to build his own system, but wants one built for gaming. In fact, I know of a few shops in town that will gather parts for and build systems for customers. Don't tell Alfonse, he might throw a fit.

Not to mention it's probably not that difficult to find a local computer geek to help you build a computer either - I'm pretty willing to build a computer system for neighbors and family, or install a component for them.

I'm not convinced that comparing hardware specs between platforms is all that meaningful for that same reason.

All the X-Box was designed to do is play games, and all the hardware and software are designed solely to that end. Plus, console developers know exactly what hardware they have to code for.

Graphical capability is a result of more than just raw clock speed and memory these days; both the architecture of the hardware and programming play a big part as well.

True, although the stability is a weakness as well as a strength: Sure, you have a good idea what your target platform is, but on the other hand the unchanging nature of the platform means that it won't be keeping up with technology or new competition.

In addition, despite not being "specialized" for games, PCs are every bit as capable of playing them. The specialization only gives a slight advantage for a year or so before general purpose computers are doing the same thing.

Hey, at least we have pride in ourselves.

(Insert Console Gamer Slobs Here)

It's more like you don't deserve to complain about PC gaming. As I said before, PC gaming requires knowledge and dedication that isn't required of consoles; just maintaining your PC is a hobby in itself.




Most of the recent cards now are having trouble with DX10. I sincerely doubt the 8300 would have been able to do anything other than a few Aero tricks.




Having purchased a Dell computer in my time, I can tell you that they are NOT flexible. Most systems you buy will give you a choice between two or three video cards, one of them usually being a low- or mid-tier card. And since their cards are OEM, they tend to cheap out on many of the parts. For example, the card that originally came with my Dell was a X300...except that their version was the cheap-o version with the smaller memory interface. The only other option I had at the time was for an X800 card, which, had I got it, would have cost me some $300 more but would have been far inferior to the X800XL card I upgraded my PC with.

Believe me, I know from experience: if you want a good gaming machine that doesn't cost you a lot of money and allows for lots of flexibility in upgrades, buy a custom built PC; DO NOT buy a manufactured one!




QFT.


Mad Cat