# Why do I need a console?  PCs are becoming them!



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2013)

I had a little revelation this week while doing the 'pizza and gaming' thing with a friend.  PCs are becoming consoles.  Rather than the tired 'PC vs Console' discussion, what I'm talking bout here is how the PC is moving into the living room and joining the consoles at the TV.

Sure, a computer on a TV was never a new idea.  I remember Half-Life over S-Video out on my Pentium III at 500mhz with the All in Wonder 128 powering it!  ...but Windows 98SE was kinda aweful at 480i.  TVs gained VGA, DVI, HDMI and in some cases even DP ports.  Now the only difference between a 'TV' and a 'Monitor' is 'Does it have a digital TV tuner in it?'  But even then you were still using Windows on a screen teen feet away from you and trying to reach for a keyboard and mouse.  Steam Big Picture Mode brings the 'Ten Foot Interface' to the TV and I always loved it.  But last night I set it up on the living room and we played The Pinball Arcade and Castle Crashers (First time playing, GREAT GAME!) on the TV using Xbox 360 controllers with a wireless USB adaptor for the controllers.  We got the console like experience, even navigating through Steam BPM for games and contacts like you would on a console.  Of course, steam is also constructing 'Steam OS' which brings that same interface to a dedicated interface.  Weather you opt for Steam BPM on Windows or Steam OS there's there's two important things: 1) You can just build the thing yourself.  2) Steam brings you the games dirt cheap sometimes.  I mention steam almost exclusively since to my knowledge no one else has brought a 10 foot interface to their platforms.  ...They should.  I only paid $3.74 for Castle Crashers when it was on sale in the summer and it was a real party pleaser.  The machine we were playing on was just an Intel laptop, integrated Sandy Bridge graphics even!

In my bedroom is the even more powerful box, my HTPC.  The HTPC was originally an AMD A6-3500 bought just for running XBMC and doing server work.  When the AMD FM1 socket was end-of-lifed I upgraded to an A6-3870K to max out the socket and it made a pretty decent lower-midish gaming box.  Last month a Radeon HD 6850 was 'hand me downed' to the HTPC and it's graphics power was increased by more than a factor of three.  It's now a 'pretty darn good midrange PC'.  It runs XBMC for all of my media enjoyment and can then launch into Steam BPM for gaming joy.  The controllers in use are 360 controllers with wireless adaptors which, thanks to Microsoft, the Xinput protocol is lock stock standard for nearly every Windows game that will use a controller.  It's not immodest hardware but it'll play a lot of mainstream games pretty well if you exclude the bleeding edge monsters like Crysis 3 or others.  So yeah, it's basically a console now.  While a bit lopsided now (3 year old GPU paired with a newer CPU with integrated but disabled GPU) I could build a comparable system for say, $400, maybe $500 after you factored in the cost of controllers.  It would be highly upgradable as GPU counts for a LOT more than CPU these days, a lot more flexible, and, unlike consoles, games would be routinely on sale for peanuts.

So why do I need a console anymore?


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 8, 2013)

Simplicity will only ever be the main selling point of any console.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Simplicity will only ever be the main selling point of any console.



I'll totally agree that, excluding maybe prebuild Steam OS boxes, a console will be more 'Plug and Play', for the enthusiast it seems you can now take your PC gaming to the couch.

I think there are some things missing though.  Steam would require a better way for media (There's talk of putting XBMC onto Steam!) and some other multimedia apps would be needed, like Netflix and the like.  Though 'Applications' are now on Steam in addition to games already so it's not insane.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 8, 2013)

I know sometimes I unplug the old rig and put it on the HDTV out in the living room (when the TV worked). Ketsui on the TV? Fook yuss.

And while I'm certain there are those who will over analyze and be cynical about the way consoles have been going, yes, the "plug in and play" and certainty of your game working will never diminish.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> So why do I need a console anymore?


Only for games that refuse to come to computer or such.  If you want to play nintendo games or other games that are console exclusive yeah there's a reason to get them, but if you have a good computer and not really interested in console exclusives there's no real reason to get a console.

Personally I think there's not going to be another xbox after the xboxone.  Xbox fans are NOT going to be happy about how getting banned dumps your rights to all games. . and yes if you do get banned from a xboxone account you are permabanned from those games as well cause once you buy the games it's permatied to your account; which means if you get banned there goes all your games as well.

Also the xboxone is in 720p instead of 1080.

The question to ask is, "Do I want to play console exclusives?"
No)Then don't get a console
Yes)Is the game only for xboxone?

No)Then get the console
Yes)Don't get the xboxone


----------



## DrDingo (Nov 8, 2013)

I don't really play consoles, but I gotta admit that games consoles are better for parties and gatherings. Otherwise you'd have to have people bring over laptops and mice, then connect to your Wifi before having a LAN party. That just takes too much effort for a couple hours of entertainment.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Nov 8, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> So why do I need a console anymore?



You don't. We are the glorious PC Master Race, suck it console peasants.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 8, 2013)

Because money.
Because I need to pay rent and keep a roof over my head.
Because an "outdated" console with used games in the $12 - 30 range is still cheaper than dropping $600 and whatever upgrades I'd need to keep up with PC gaming.
Life is hard, mayn.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2013)

Vaelarsa said:


> Because money.
> Because I need to pay rent and keep a roof over my head.
> Because an "outdated" console with used games in the $12 - 30 range is still cheaper than dropping $600 and whatever upgrades I'd need to keep up with PC gaming.
> Life is hard, mayn.



Well, to counter that, with older games you likely wouldn't need said $600 box and those games seem to go for $5 on Steam.  I actually have this motto 'Any game can wait, because it will eventually be five bux on Steam'.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2013)

Convenience, exclusives, plug and play.

Let's face it there are people still utterly computer retarded out there. That's why more people are using mobile devices to reach twitter, tumblr and facebook. Then you have people moving to tablets. 

So there's still quite a number of people that can't be assed with a computer (which I think is a shame) and find it confusing. I had people asking me to upgrade Windows 95 and older machines (Can't I just get more RAM?)

So consoles provided convenience for those people. Computers are still generally seen as bulky devices.



AshleyAshes said:


> Well, to counter that, with older games you likely wouldn't need said $600 box and those games seem to go for $5 on Steam.  I actually have this motto 'Any game can wait, because it will eventually be five bux on Steam'.



Except that you're assuming "those games" are on Steam in the first place.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 8, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> And while I'm certain there are those who will over analyze and be cynical about the way consoles have been going, yes, the "plug in and play" and certainty of your game working will never diminish.



AS well as the stability.

I can count on one hand how many times my consoles have crashed. 

As for my PC... I need both my hands, both of my feet, both yours and CannonFodder's hands, both of your feet, AND another set of hands and feet just to count how many times a game has crashed on it. I've never had to flat out adjust settings to get a game on my PS3 to not lag or even start a game.


----------



## Dictator Lister (Nov 8, 2013)

Consoles are still the ultimate local machine, especially the older ones. Hook up a Gamecube and Melee, or if you're really decked out a Dreamcast and Powerstone, and you're set. Unfortunately, PC games kind of (okay, SEVERELY) lack the ability to entertain more than one person at a time. But in terms of just about everything aside from that and some exclusives, PC is the way to go.

And I think it's a while before PCs become expensive consoles. They still dominate the RTS genre, plenty of indie titles flourish on PC, and its openness is unparalleled. Plus, backwards compatibility and customization is rarely ever an issue. In short, your PC is safe. The games developers are making, on the other hand...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> Consoles are still the ultimate local machine, especially the older ones. Hook up a Gamecube and Melee, or if you're really decked out a Dreamcast and Powerstone, and you're set. Unfortunately, PC games kind of (okay, SEVERELY) lack the ability to entertain more than one person at a time. But in terms of just about everything aside from that and some exclusives, PC is the way to go.



I noticed that certain Console -> PC ports LOSE their local multi. D:  Uhh, the second Sonic Cart Racer for example, is single local and online multi only.  WTF?


----------



## Dictator Lister (Nov 8, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> I noticed that certain Console -> PC ports LOSE their local multi. D:  Uhh, the second Sonic Cart Racer for example, is single local and online multi only.  WTF?


It's the complication that comes with the control scheme. That and most monitors aren't as large as televisions, so splitscreen (though at a higher resolution, usually) is really hard to do. And you have to have multiple controllers plugged in (which depending on your rig, could be a problem depending on the number of USB ports. I doubt two people will share a keyboard.)

That's another issue with PC gaming: the lack of uniformity. Everybody with a console has the exact same box with the same capabilities. Games will run the exact same regardless of who's playing, and can be designed with a greater degree of optimization regarding local multiplayer. PCs do not have said luxury and it would be a waste of resources to impliment a feature that so few are able to use, let alone would WANT to use.

Unless there's a mass-produced, cheap, capable gaming rig that gains enough traction to be used by the majority of PC gamers, things will remain the way they are. But at that point you'd be buying a console anyways.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 8, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> It's the complication that comes with the control scheme. That and most monitors aren't as large as televisions, so splitscreen (though at a higher resolution, usually) is really hard to do. And you have to have multiple controllers plugged in (which depending on your rig, could be a problem depending on the number of USB ports. I doubt two people will share a keyboard.)



I found this to be a bigger issue with the older DInput controllers.  "Which controller is #1, Windows?"  "Which ever one was plugged in first.   Unless they don't have the same name, then it COULD be the one that's alphabetically first but maybe not.  Also, if they are the same, I can't actually tell the user which one is Controller #1!"

At least the 360 or other controllers via XInput can clearly determine which controller is which number. >_<


----------



## Spikey2k2 (Nov 8, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> It's the complication that comes with the control scheme. That and most monitors aren't as large as televisions, so splitscreen (though at a higher resolution, usually) is really hard to do. And you have to have multiple controllers plugged in (which depending on your rig, could be a problem depending on the number of USB ports. I doubt two people will share a keyboard.)
> 
> That's another issue with PC gaming: the lack of uniformity. Everybody with a console has the exact same box with the same capabilities. Games will run the exact same regardless of who's playing, and can be designed with a greater degree of optimization regarding local multiplayer. PCs do not have said luxury and it would be a waste of resources to impliment a feature that so few are able to use, let alone would WANT to use.
> 
> Unless there's a mass-produced, cheap, capable gaming rig that gains enough traction to be used by the majority of PC gamers, things will remain the way they are. But at that point you'd be buying a console anyways.


Well not really. Considering you could add a multiple controllers option because Xbox controllers, plus pc controllers and most PC's now have multiple USB's so that would fix that. I do this on my PC with emulators. On Split-screen, multiple monitors? Which many people already run. 
 Failing that have you never heard of a LAN party? That shit was being done back when the first Diablo was around so it really is just removing a feature.
I LAN partied Crysis and that was king shit in the graphic department at the time and still pack a wallop running on max which I was doing back in JR High hauling around my tower and an old CRT monitor.  But it's being faded out now I would wager even though I don't know Crysis 3 has no LAN. Plus individual PC's can lower the specs of the game so the individual performance of the game on one PC or another is moot.


----------



## Dictator Lister (Nov 8, 2013)

Spikey2k2 said:


> Well not really. Considering you could add a multiple controllers option because Xbox controllers, plus pc controllers and most PC's now have multiple USB's so that would fix that. I do this on my PC with emulators. On Split-screen, multiple monitors? Which many people already run.
> Failing that have you never heard of a LAN party? That shit was being done back when the first Diablo was around so it really is just removing a feature.
> I LAN partied Crysis and that was king shit in the graphic department at the time and still pack a wallop running on max which I was doing back in JR High hauling around my tower and an old CRT monitor.  But it's being faded out now I would wager even though I don't know Crysis 3 has no LAN. Plus individual PC's can lower the specs of the game so the individual performance of the game on one PC or another is moot.


But it's still an issue. Yes, it can be done, but not everybody will know how to do it and the system may not even be able to handle it. Splitscreen on consoles can stutter horribly (look at the 360 version of Left 4 Dead 2) and it can be even worse on PC if the game isn't optimized, something that is happening less and less in our time of multiplats and tossed-together ports.

And LAN parties are nice, but it's much less convenient than just plugging in a second controller and playing, because everybody needs to bring their own machine, copy of the game, monitor, etc...


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> And LAN parties are nice, but it's much less convenient than just plugging in a second controller and playing, because everybody needs to bring their own machine, copy of the game, monitor, etc...


When was the last time you played a console game split-screen? I get that it's part of your point, but gaming has moved beyond that for the most part because frankly split-screen is horrible. Games that wouldn't require split-screen, like for example games like Worms generally don't have any trouble with using multiple controllers.


----------



## Dictator Lister (Nov 8, 2013)

Runefox said:


> When was the last time you played a console game split-screen? I get that it's part of your point, but gaming has moved beyond that for the most part because frankly split-screen is horrible. Games that wouldn't require split-screen, like for example games like Worms generally don't have any trouble with using multiple controllers.


Actually I've done it quite often, I play lots of old PS1 games with my friends. My point isn't that it's bad, or that it can't be done, but it's a bigger pain on the PC than it is on consoles because it requires first having the proper setup, and second actually having a PC game that supports it.

But yeah, with online play and such it's dwindled away. A shame because I hate having to tell friends to go home so we can play a game. Defeats the point of multiplayer in my opinion.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 8, 2013)

Vaelarsa said:


> Because money.
> Because I need to pay rent and keep a roof over my head.
> Because an "outdated" console with used games in the $12 - 30 range is still cheaper than dropping $600 and whatever upgrades I'd need to keep up with PC gaming.
> Life is hard, mayn.



I don't know...
I've been gaming on shitty Dell computers for as long as I can remember and I've run into like... no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 9, 2013)

Games. Games. Games. Games. And that is all. I go where the games I want are, irregardless of what platform they're on.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

Fernin said:


> irregardless



Ugh...


----------



## Willow (Nov 9, 2013)

Not gonna lie but PCs are kind of hit and miss. By which I mean unless you get a computer solely for the purpose of gaming, or just so happen to have the right stuff, there's a good chance the game you bought off Steam or from Best Buy won't run. 

At least if I have a console game I'm secure in the fact that it'll most definitely work unless there's something wrong with the console or the disk. 

So I dunno, until computer companies and/or game developers come to a general consensus on some universal method of making their stuff so everything is compatible, PC gaming is just another way to game but won't totally kick out consoles.


----------



## chesse20 (Nov 9, 2013)

Willow said:


> Not gonna lie but PCs are kind of hit and miss. By which I mean unless you get a computer solely for the purpose of gaming, or just so happen to have the right stuff, there's a good chance the game you bought off Steam or from Best Buy won't run.
> 
> At least if I have a console game I'm secure in the fact that it'll most definitely work unless there's something wrong with the console or the disk.
> 
> So I dunno, until computer companies and/or game developers come to a general consensus on some universal method of making their stuff so everything is compatible, PC gaming is just another way to game but won't totally kick out consoles.


There's plenty of classic games , you don't have to buy the hippin hoppinest new games out there. You can go on somewhere like gog and buy some oldies or mass buy old games off Amazon or the thrift store. I found this cool stealth game that was goty in 2001 and a cool centipede for PC for 2 bucks each at the thrift store


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2013)

Willow said:


> Not gonna lie but PCs are kind of hit and miss. By which I mean unless you get a computer solely for the purpose of gaming, or just so happen to have the right stuff, there's a good chance the game you bought off Steam or from Best Buy won't run.


Not anymore really. If you've bought an AMD APU-based PC in the past year or so, you can expect pretty reliable performance in around the Xbox 360 range. Newer Haswell Intel CPU's also offer very good IGP's compared to previous generations and also provide decent performance for casual gaming.

Unless you're buying $300 shitbooks, you're likely to have something capable of gaming. A friend of mine grabbed a $600 HP with an A8 APU and at 1366x768 everything she's thrown at it runs nice and smooth.

You could of course argue that an XB1 or PS4 costs just $500 and $400 respectively, but that ignores the fact that a laptop is portable, has a built-in screen and battery, and also functions as a full fledged computer, which you were going to buy anyway.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 9, 2013)

It depends on what you need and they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
For example, on PCs you do have a bigger overall selection of games but there are still many console exclusives. If I want to play the latest Nintendo games and all I have is a PC I simply can't play them.

You can upgrade PCs to be able to play the latest games. But what if you don't know how to do that or if you simply don't want to do that? When you buy a console you are good to go for it's whole lifecycle. You don't have to upgrade PCs as often anymore but really now, what is the difference between buying a new $300 GPU and maybe a new expensive GPU every 3 years compared to buying a new console every 3 to 6 years?

Then there are the stability issues on the PC... They can be really awful. Don't have the latest beta driver for your GPU that's hidden on the Nvidia website and that can only be found through posts on forums? That's just no fun at all.
To be fair though, these issues are slowly creeping onto consoles as well. It is not rare anymore that games need tons of patches before they run properly.

The biggest advantages for PCs is that they are almost infinitely backwards compatible though! Want to play a point and click adventure from the 90s? No problem! With minimal effort you can get it to run. Sure on the Nintendo systems you have the whole Virtual Console thing but that requires you to actually buy these old games again. If you already own an ancient PC game you don't have to buy it a second time. Install it and run it. Or maybe you will have to use something like ScummVM or DOSBox to actually run it but that doesn't take a whole lot of work as well.

They both do things differently. There is no way to say that one is better than the other. It depends on what you need.
If you need a more versatile machine that has more options and can be upgraded but may be a little harder to work with some times because of software issues a PC is your best bet.
If you just want to play games, maybe even specifically those that are exclusive to a certain brand, and just don't care about upgrades and all that, then a console may be better for you.

I like to have a good mix of both. I have my PC for browsing the web, Youtube and some casual indie titles and then I have my consoles for playing some vidya.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> You can upgrade PCs to be able to play the latest games. But what if you don't know how to do that or if you simply don't want to do that? When you buy a console you are good to go for it's whole lifecycle. You don't have to upgrade PCs as often anymore but really now, *what is the difference between buying a new $300 GPU and maybe a new expensive GPU every 3 years compared to buying a new console every 3 to 6 years?*


This is a point that I make a lot. You're buying a PC anyway; You pretty much need one. So the cost of the basic PC is out the window as far as comparisons go. Really, if you start with a decent baseline (say, a ~$600-700 PC), the difference in price that makes it a "high-end gaming" PC is the cost of a graphics card (or if you got the PC off the shelf, possibly also a power supply ($70-100)), which will run around $200-300 for something that's appreciably "high-end". Hell, even the *really* high-end stuff is around $400-500 - The cost of a PS4 or XB1. So while your gaming PC may cost around $1000 or so in total, you're looking at having spent only around $300 on the gaming aspect of it. The same is generally also true for laptops with GPU's capable of handling games, though laptop GPU's are generally far less capable for the same cost.

Will you get 5 years out of your GPU? Depending on your tastes and which you've chosen, yes. If you have to have the highest end graphics possible, then you're probably going to be disappointed with the performance of your card after a couple of years, but if you're content to just run it smoothly and turn some of the bells and whistles down (the consoles are already running at the minimum), you'll go pretty far, especially if you picked up a pretty meaty graphics card when you built the PC. The Radeon HD 5870, a mid-high range card released 4 years ago, is still relevant today with performance in line with the Radeon HD 7770, which is today a mid-low range card. A more powerful card from the same period would be more in line with a Radeon HD 7800-series or GTX 660 GPU.

As an example, the requirements for Call of Duty: Ghosts specify a GeForce GTS 450 or better; They say a 5870 is also the AMD minimum equivalent, but the 5870 is actually more than twice as powerful than the 450. Ghosts so far has been criticized for its rather absurdly high requirements on PC (thanks mainly to not at all being optimized), so this stands as a pretty good litmus test.

 However, a much better test would be ArmA III, which is a legitimately stressful game on a GPU, whose minimum requirements are (along with Arkham Origins) a *R**adeon HD 3830*, with recommended being a *7750*. Assassin's Creed: Black Flag's recommended requirement is a 5850 (minimum being a 4870). It should be noted that the* Radeon HD 3830 (and equivalent GeForce 8 series) are cards from 2007 (2006 for the GeForce)*. *The 4870 is a 2008 card*.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 9, 2013)

Yeah, if you upgrade in a smart way PCs are about as expensive as new consoles. Only if you care about having the best graphics at all times upgrading a PC can become more expensive than consoles. I used to know someone who instead of upgrading his PC just bought 1000 bucks worth of components for an all new machine at least once a year. But that's an extreme case!
As you said, a medium to high end GPU lets you play everything without issues for the same time that a console lets you play the newest games.
There really isn't that much of a price difference, upgrading in itself is the issue here and whether you are willing to do that or whether you actually know how to do it. It's a matter of what is more convenient for you.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 9, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> That's another issue with PC gaming: the lack of uniformity. Everybody with a console has the exact same box with the same capabilities. Games will run the exact same regardless of who's playing, and can be designed with a greater degree of optimization regarding local multiplayer. PCs do not have said luxury and it would be a waste of resources to impliment a feature that so few are able to use, let alone would WANT to use..



The lack of standardized hardware also makes it a little easier to develop or a console as well - for a PC game, unless you're going the retro route, you only have an idea of what your customers have. You have multiple OSes (including multiple versions of the same OS), different graphics cards, different processors, etc. There's always going to be someone who has a really weird PC configuration that you've probably never even heard of that's having trouble running the game. Essentially it's almost like making a third-party console title.

But then again, you want to make a PC game that's as accessible as possible. One of the charms of WoW back in the day was that you didn't need to buy a new graphics card to play it. Same with Sins of a Solar Empire - you could probably play that game on a computer from the 1990s and it'll work. And one of the reasons Trespasser failed was that it would send most computers in the market into epileptic shock and unlike Crysis, wasn't even worth it.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 9, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> Ugh...



Problem?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2013)

If Video card makers quit making everything so confusing on their end, maybe more people would be less wary about using a PC instead for games. Instead it's a clusterfuck that even computer experts have thrown their hands in the air trying to explain the difference between various graphics cards and making it easier for consumers to understand upgrade paths and what do those fancy numbers mean.

I can't blame people for saying "Fuck it, I'll get a console" instead of trying to wrap their head around various parts. 

Furnishing wise, if you're cramped in with a bunch of people a good computer is probably more optimal space wise vs getting various consoles - unless you like doing local multiplayer - which Consoles still have this beat a bit better. Plus with a system that's just primarily for gaming vs a PC you're less likely to accidentally kill your friend's essay if you're playing together on a console vs his computer which would probably be multi tasking. 

In which another pro for consoles is less worrying about privacy. Most people are doing things on their computer that's more private and people probably would want to worry less about the risk of PC sharing, that is less of a worry on a Console - not that it isn't a concern - just far less consequences. Just basically you can have a console be nearly free of accounts that would have more access to personal information and simply have it about for more gaming accounts. I don't think many are just going to have a PC that's clean of that info after all there's a reason PC is short for *Personal* Computer. That's why for many households the "family computer" stops working as a solution for people at a certain age and you end up giving your kid and such one of their own. Even if they're not looking up porn, people get possessive of the PC because of their personal information. This makes it harder for party games like a console. 

A PC with various DRM tactics from software makers, kind make the purchases more personal per say. You buy a game disc for a console (with some exceptions where you need to pay subscriptions for servers like Final Fantasy or certain EA games hahah the fuck) ease of who is going to play it.

You buy a game on Steam, you're gonna be more cautious who is going to play it because it's tied to your account. 

So it's still easier to share and play games on a Console than a PC at this time.

Then there's bulk. Even with the complaints about the size of certain consoles, still little less bulk than what people do for PC towers on average - especially for gaming and other things. Yes, not happy when items aren't backwards compatible since it's more bulk in the living room, but it's still less obnoxious than my mid sized tower. In fact the most obnoxious piece of equipment is the bigass subwoofer which looks like a damn tower (surprised me how big it was) when I bought it for the living room. I used to have the PC out in the living room and now I have it back in an office room of my apartment. I rather keep it that way. I have a good router that does media streaming to my TV my consoles can do disc media so I'm good. The subwoofer/sound system is wireless so I can do music streaming (which is rare because I use my TV/system for watching Netflix/Movies/Games). This keeps my main tower as a point of control and more geared to what I want it to do, instead of the "everyman" system of clutter.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 9, 2013)

Holy wall texts, this got a lot of discussion.



Digitalpotato said:


> AS well as the stability.
> 
> I can count on one hand how many times my consoles have crashed.
> 
> As for my PC... I need both my hands, both of my feet, both yours and CannonFodder's hands, both of your feet, AND another set of hands and feet just to count how many times a game has crashed on it. I've never had to flat out adjust settings to get a game on my PS3 to not lag or even start a game.



I do get some odd problems with games sometimes. Statements like this show that PC and console is a sort of pick your poison. You can have full control and VASTLY superior quality for more frequent hiccups where the problem is rarely obvious. Or you can go for somewhat lower quality (anyone telling me that PS4 graphics are ugly needs to shut the fuck up. One looking better doesn't mean something is flat out bad) that is unadjustable, but have constant stability with a 100% guarantee of a Wii U game working on Wii U and so on.



Heliophobic said:


> I don't know...
> I've been gaming on shitty Dell computers for as long as I can remember and I've run into like... no problems whatsoever.



But it depends on what types of games you play and if you care about maxing out. Someone like Arshes who enjoys smaller titles mostly may not care for an enthusiast build that can max out Crysis 3 at 1234567890 FPS. 
Though I'm sure you can build a PC for cheap, but that brings in another problem. Actually a few. Finding deals for EVERY part you want. Let's not even get into defective products.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Then there's bulk.


Well, if you're building for the purpose of the living room, there are compact non-tower cases for that...






SilverStone Sugo SG06. Fits a full size graphics card, 2 hard drives (1 each of 2.5" and 3.5"), and a slimline optical drive. If you were fine with an AMD APU or single-slot graphics card instead...






Silverstone LC19 (That's it on the floor; It comes with a riser to mount PCI/PCI-E cards horizontally)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2013)

But if I have other solutions that does what I want it to do, why would I buy more stuff? It still doesn't invalidate the issues where people like to do more stuff on the PC than just gaming where privacy becomes a concern.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2013)

Really wasn't trying to bring hardcore PC gaming into this thread. :/


----------



## Fernin (Nov 9, 2013)

@Arshes Nei: Errrrr, video cards really aren't that complicated... >.>


----------



## Dictator Lister (Nov 9, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Really wasn't trying to bring hardcore PC gaming into this thread. :/


You think this is bad? Take a stroll down /v/ sometime.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 9, 2013)

That's a nice fireplace. :0


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2013)

Fernin said:


> @Arshes Nei: Errrrr, video cards really aren't that complicated... >.>



Explain them in a few sentences. Then explain them to an average user. Sorry but most people don't know shit from just a model number as to what they do.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 9, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> You think this is bad? Take a stroll down /v/ sometime.



I think it's a tad silly, Desktop PCs sales are on the decline, being replaced by laptop PC sales (which are weaker than desktops in terms of graphic power) and even laptop sales are declining in favor of tablets.  I was hoping to direct this more to the discussion of building an affordable living room PC, that boots directly into Steam or Steam OS and allows you access to a huge range of delightful games, many of them dirt cheap several times a year, and the joy that could bring.  If you actually take a peak at the VAST majority of games on Steam, they aren't cutting edge, monster graphics, GPU killers.  A good number don't even suggest more than a dual core CPU to get cooking even.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2013)

Steam needs to make is more accessible as a living room experience. I'm not saying Steam is a bad service, I love it. Just that when it gets to handling multiplayer and various games its still DRM that is for the individual. So it's not quite, family/living room/multiple people ready imo. 

Let's think about this scenario with Steam's current setup. Your kid is playing a game, and sees a game on sale. You don't have parental guards or sub-accounts right now to keep the kid from making certain purchases. If I got a game for a console, the kid could pop in the game but I can set a user account that prevents the kid from doing in game purchases or purchases that are ratings based.

That doesn't mean Steam isn't making headway into that direction, but it still is lacking.
Also again people may not be willing to build a PC for Steam only.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 10, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Explain them in a few sentences. Then explain them to an average user. Sorry but most people don't know shit from just a model number as to what they do.



The bigger the number, the better the card more or less. Installation for a base level user consists of...

1: Take card out of Box.
2: Stick Card into PCIe Slot.
3: Plug in power cable.
4: Turn on computer.
5: Stick in driver CD from box, follow on screen instructions.
6: Game.

Frankly integrating most consoles into a home theater system is more complicated and time consuming. This whole thing of treating PC parts like some form of arcane artifacts that require occult knowledge to even approach is stupid. Hell building lego models is literally more complicated.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 10, 2013)

Not anymore. AMD switched up the game like THIS month. So now people have to keep on top of the different RX200 models as well as the Radeon 6000 and 7000 series that are still being sold. It's still confusing to PC newbies. 

"Are the Radeon HD's better? Or this goofy RX thing? What about this GTX thing over here? Do they have compatibility features that differ? I'm so confused!" *eats a shotgun*.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> I think it's a tad silly, Desktop PCs sales are on the decline, being replaced by laptop PC sales (which are weaker than desktops in terms of graphic power) and even laptop sales are declining in favor of tablets.  I was hoping to direct this more to the discussion of building an affordable living room PC, that boots directly into Steam or Steam OS and allows you access to a huge range of delightful games, many of them dirt cheap several times a year, and the joy that could bring.  If you actually take a peak at the VAST majority of games on Steam, they aren't cutting edge, monster graphics, GPU killers.  A good number don't even suggest more than a dual core CPU to get cooking even.


 Alright, well, let's take a look at the cost of a living room-geared HTPC that's got a fairly complete set of features and doesn't break the bank. I'll be using an AMD A-10 APU for this to negate the need for a full-fledged graphics card to both keep costs and size to a minimum. I'll be assuming we're going Steam OS or the OS is otherwise already taken care of. The computer should be able to handle everything thrown at it at 1080p, albeit not at maximum settings (think next gen console-style experience; With developers beginning to take interest in AMD's Mantle API, it should be fairly close in terms of performance to the next-genners given time in spite the extra overhead involved with a PC OS. Battlefield 4 is one example that will support it soon). It should also be relatively compact.

This is what I've come up with. 8GB of RAM, 1TB HDD, WiFi and Bluetooth built-in, quad core APU with Radeon HD 8670D graphics, bundled into a rather Xbox One-sized case. Dual HDMI, 1 DVI-DL, 4 USB 3.0 ports, 4 USB 2.0 ports, surround sound audio, and gigabit LAN. With Windows 8.1, the price is $559.46; Without, it's $460.48. This should handle just about anything as long as you don't expect high end graphics from it. With Mantle, it should gain a bit more performance still. Just add a wireless keyboard and mouse and a 360 pad and you're set. You can also install a slot-loading DVD or Blu-Ray drive if you desire, but that's extraneous and also somewhat expensive. A steam box has no use for discs. A less expensive route is a USB optical drive if you absolutely must.



Arshes Nei said:


> Let's think about this scenario with Steam's current setup. Your kid is playing a game, and sees a game on sale. You don't have parental guards or sub-accounts right now to keep the kid from making certain purchases. If I got a game for a console, the kid could pop in the game but I can set a user account that prevents the kid from doing in game purchases or purchases that are ratings based.


 Actually, that's what family sharing is for on Steam. As long as only one of you are using the library at a time (as would be the case on a single console), you can allow access to your games for other users. It's not exactly what people were hoping for (people were hyped for XB1-style family sharing (which was never what they thought it was to begin with)), but it's tailor made for this kind of scenario.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Nov 10, 2013)

Runefox said:


> This is what I've come up with. 8GB of RAM, 1TB HDD, WiFi and Bluetooth built-in, quad core APU with Radeon HD 8670D graphics, bundled into a rather Xbox One-sized case. Dual HDMI, 1 DVI-DL, 4 USB 3.0 ports, 4 USB 2.0 ports, surround sound audio, and gigabit LAN. With Windows 8.1, the price is $559.46; Without, it's $460.48. This should handle just about anything as long as you don't expect high end graphics from it. With Mantle, it should gain a bit more performance still. Just add a wireless keyboard and mouse and a 360 pad and you're set. You can also install a slot-loading DVD or Blu-Ray drive if you desire, but that's extraneous and also somewhat expensive. A steam box has no use for discs. A less expensive route is a USB optical drive if you absolutely must.


This has more power than I normally wanted, yet it's much cheaper than I expected. You have reinstated my faith in getting a new tower.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 10, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Not anymore. AMD switched up the game like THIS month. So now people have to keep on top of the different RX200 models as well as the Radeon 6000 and 7000 series that are still being sold. It's still confusing to PC newbies.
> 
> "Are the Radeon HD's better? Or this goofy RX thing? What about this GTX thing over here? Do they have compatibility features that differ? I'm so confused!" *eats a shotgun*.



Until AMD can make decent drivers, I both recommend and stick to the brute for approach of Nvidia and their mainstream cards.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Nov 10, 2013)

Runefox said:


> When was the last time you played a console game split-screen? I get that it's part of your point, but gaming has moved beyond that for the most part because frankly split-screen is horrible. Games that wouldn't require split-screen, like for example games like Worms generally don't have any trouble with using multiple controllers.


to answer your question yesterday or friday. It's not horrible since you get to play together and be social. It's not something that can be obsolete.
offline multiplayer is the biggest thing consoles have over pcs, It provides a very nice and important social aspect to gaming that pc gaming doesn't really do nearly as well.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2013)

Fernin said:


> The bigger the number, the better the card more or less. Installation for a base level user consists of...
> 
> 1: Take card out of Box.
> 2: Stick Card into PCIe Slot.
> ...



Still doesn't explain it. They have different numbers for different models. A Firepro for example isn't really made for gaming for example. When they revamp lines they change the number scheme. Some older models with different numbers that are lower still perform better than the "higher number".


----------



## Fernin (Nov 10, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Still doesn't explain it. They have different numbers for different models. A Firepro for example isn't really made for gaming for example. When they revamp lines they change the number scheme. Some older models with different numbers that are lower still perform better than the "higher number".



And yet your 'point' there could be resolved with 5 minutes of google-fu and common sense. To be frank your problem sounds to me more like willful ignorance than any actual lack of understanding. Finding out what video card you want/need is less complicated than researching something like TVs, or stereos, or any number of other things the average consumer manages just fine.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2013)

I said to the average user. Most people still don't understand the concepts of different video cards and their functions. Not to mention why older video cards can still perform better than newer ones with your "higher numbers = better" nonsense. Man, I thought molasses was thick.



Runefox said:


> Actually, that's what family sharing is for on Steam. As long as only one of you are using the library at a time (as would be the case on a single console), you can allow access to your games for other users. It's not exactly what people were hoping for (people were hyped for XB1-style family sharing (which was never what they thought it was to begin with)), but it's tailor made for this kind of scenario.



Still has the problem I outlined earlier. You want to restrict what games your kids play.

_Can I share specific games, or do I have to share my whole library?_
*
Libraries are shared and borrowed in their entirety.*

VS being able to do this: https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/184 or this http://support.xbox.com/en-US/billing-and-subscriptions/parental-controls/xbox-live-parental-control or even this http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/sy...parental_controls_faq&submenu=wup-pc-ht-setup


----------



## Fernin (Nov 10, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> I said to the average user.



You're right, you're more akin to granite thickness wise. I'm talking about the average user. You're woefully underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

............................................________ 
....................................,.-'"...................``~., 
.............................,.-"..................................."-., 
.........................,/...............................................":, 
.....................,?......................................................, 
.................../...........................................................,} 
................./......................................................,:`^`..} 
.............../...................................................,:"........./ 
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ 
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ 
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ 
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} 
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ 
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ 
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" 
............/.`~,......`-...................................../ 
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ 
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-, 
.....`=~-,__......`,................................. 
...................`=~-,,.,............................... 
................................`:,,...........................`..............__ 
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` 
........................................_..........._,-%.......` 
...................................,


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2013)

Not at all, because as I've said people have had difficulty explaining graphics cards to the average end user. Even we had discussions in the Tech forum about what were Quadros about. Most of them know they are there to power games, but fuck if they know which ones are the best other than a price tag, not knowing why. 

But I forgot I'm talking to the same person that overpays for a gaming laptop of all things.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 10, 2013)

Dictator Lister said:


> You think this is bad? Take a stroll down /v/ sometime.



You shouldn't be on /v/ in the first place unless you want to find osmething to laugh at.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 10, 2013)

Digitalpotato said:


> You shouldn't be on /v/ in the first place unless you want to find osmething to laugh at.



Oh, /v/ isn't _that_ bad.

Wasn't that bad, at least...


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Not at all, because as I've said people have had difficulty explaining graphics cards to the average end user. Even we had discussions in the Tech forum about what were Quadros about. Most of them know they are there to power games, but fuck if they know which ones are the best other than a price tag, not knowing why.


To be fair, people are equally confused about processors now that clock speed isn't the sole metric anymore. It's become even more confusing with hyperthreading and AMD's APU's with quad core integer and dual core floating point.

I remember one customer I had at a local computer shop when the Core 2 Duo series came along. He wanted to upgrade from an older 2GHz Pentium 4; The Core 2 Duo E6300 was 1.86GHz but significantly faster. The build I'd put together for him included one; Trying to explain to him that the processor was more efficient was like talking to a brick wall. He saw the numbers and immediately was convinced that I was lying and trying to sell him a slower computer.

The same thing happens now with AMD vs Intel quad cores, where even gamers are convinced that they're equivalent when they're really, _really_ not. Intel is currently in a position where AMD was back during the Pentium 4 era; They have more efficient, more capable processors, and the competition can only keep increasing clock speed to try and compete (AMD hilariously is claiming victories in the clock speed arena). It's really eerie how similar the situation is. AMD's major advantage - Their APU's - are experiencing a rapid shrinking of their formerly huge lead in graphics performance.

What I do in a nutshell isn't to get into the specs of the components anymore unless I'm sure they'll understand it. Instead, I look for the performance point they want and point them in the best direction. Are they playing games, or not? If so, what is the latest game they're looking to play? Do they want to max it out? What other things are they doing with the computer? Those are the types of questions that help decide which parts are best to recommend. Getting into the nitty gritty of it is only ever confusing and an exercise in frustration unless they know what they're talking about.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2013)

Runefox said:


> To be fair, people are equally confused about processors now that clock speed isn't the sole metric anymore. It's become even more confusing with hyperthreading and AMD's APU's with quad core integer and dual core floating point.
> 
> What I do in a nutshell isn't to get into the specs of the components anymore unless I'm sure they'll understand it. Instead, I look for the performance point they want and point them in the best direction. Are they playing games, or not? If so, what is the latest game they're looking to play? Do they want to max it out? What other things are they doing with the computer? Those are the types of questions that help decide which parts are best to recommend. Getting into the nitty gritty of it is only ever confusing and an exercise in frustration unless they know what they're talking about.



Yes, and basically the only people who fight about it (specs) on consoles are fanboys neckbeards really into this. 

And basically as another person who builds PCs , the last paragraph is what I ask people who want a new computer. But the build is going to vary depending on what you want most from it. The thing is if they want everything then it's less likely to be a gaming machine, because again it's more complexity added to a system that can have more things going wrong. Which is why it's better if the PC stays separate from the "family gaming console" You can guarantee even with that many people doing multiple things on that system - some shit is gonna go wrong. Unless you want Timmy's homework inaccessible because someone downloaded Sanic.exe. Sometimes even then bad installs have been known to corrupt the PC. Even if you tell them a million times the best safety practices online.

So saying "well this isn't hard, you can make a PC for cheap that plays games" isn't the best case for end consumers with multiple members in the family. I think college students or people living together that are more savvy, it's a good deal (with the big exception that there are still a number of games that are console exclusives). 

I favor PC gaming over consoles but making it simple for people is always key.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> I favor PC gaming over consoles but making it simple for people is always key.


I think that's really the key reasoning behind the Steam Machines and SteamOS. While I'm not sure if Valve knows what they're getting into rolling their own distribution of Linux (and then trying to get people to support that), they certainly know what needs to go into it in order to make the experience as seamless as possible. The problem becomes that a SteamOS PC is going to be less capable than one booting into Windows. Sure, if it's able to install other packages you can get Firefox and OpenOffice, but there's a reason why Linux isn't exactly common on desktops. The Year of the Linux Desktop has long been elusive, and while SteamOS might push that a little closer, I have to wonder how successful it'll be at bringing it all the way.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 10, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> Oh, /v/ isn't _that_ bad.
> 
> Wasn't that bad, at least...



/v/ WAS where the comments too stupid for IGN or Kotakualuealueleuale went, before they spilled into Reddit. Now /v/ is full of cock-measuring hipsters.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 11, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> But I forgot I'm talking to the same person that overpays for a gaming laptop of all things.



You need a spotlight for that strawman? Because that's about the stupidest rationalization for someone's stance in an argument I've ever read. But of course I suppose some people will try to defend themselves any way possible even when they're plainly, obviously, PAINFULLY, wrong on the actual matter at hand. So keep your stawman and I'll offer my thoughts on the ACTUAL subject of discussion.

Explaining graphics cards to the average user is, frankly, easy. I've been building computers for a while now, often, friends come to me with questions when they're going to build their own. In the space of five to ten minutes I've taught them everything they needed to know, and all have since been able to figure it out on their own. The fact that you continue to insist the majority of people are too stupid to figure it out boggles my mind. If it was really that hard, nobody would do it! Maybe it's just because YOU can't figure it out, I dunno. But whatever your 'reason' is, the assumption it provides you is incorrect, disingenuous, and frankly, stupid.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 11, 2013)

Whoa.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2013)

You mean 2 pages of arguments on how to overspend on a laptop for gaming, is gonna tell me that you build PCs and were even part of the ones saying to buy an overpriced laptop and offered *no help whatsoever* on actual building nor parts. Yeah go on with with telling me how stupid I'm being. Sorry but you going around not even still explaining what I asked you to do previously to the average user correctly. Sorry your retort of anger at me is all fail. "Go buy the more expensive one stupid"

Go on, explain in a few sentences with your overpriced Laptop how easy it is again. Because for most consumers it's still confusing which is why they don't bother with building their own along with other parts like Runefox and I discussed.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 11, 2013)

I smell a wall text incoming...


----------



## Fernin (Nov 11, 2013)

So let's get this straight. Having been unable to provide a valid counter argument to my point that graphics cards are really not that complicated, you're going to instead try and do SOMETHING (still not exactly sure what) with the fact I buy expensive laptops, as if that fact some how has something to do with this argument... Right.  Makes total sense...  -_- You post makes no sense, you've offered zero substance to this discussion, and now that you Cleary can't make a point you're grasping at straws to try and defend... Something.  Whatever.  I gave you a cut and dried example on the ACTUAL issue. You refuse to accept it. That pig headedness is your problem.  Not mine. Thousands, If not millions of average users (whom you seem to assume are morons) manage the task without issue. Ergo your point has no substance, or value to this discussion and points to nothing but your own perceived problems.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 11, 2013)

Fernin.

This entire time you've been posting much longer posts than what Arshes asked, specifically a few (3) sentences to explain the technical differences between each model.
You've suggested a google search, you said you have your friends frequently coming to you with questions, simply buying the bigger number just because, and a few other things for a single part of the PC, emphasis on single.
When I gave a more solid answer to back up Arshes claims you didn't even address that, just gave a recommendation for another card...which if I were average bob I wouldn't know why. Because you know more than me, I would have listened on the mere premise that I trust your judgement, NOT because I've been informed.

As you kept talking, you proving Arshes' (Arshes's? Arshie's? What is possessive nouns for 500?) original point.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2013)

You still aren't able to explain it clearly I see. You haven't been able to do it in the past, and if PCs are going to be gaming consoles they certainly don't need to be several thousand dollar overpriced gaming laptops which you have. A higher model number doesn't always guarantee performance. Just like earlier CPUs have changed enough to make it where it isn't a model number game all the time either. 9500 is higher than 760. 

So you'll excuse me for brushing off your opinion "they're not that hard" when you haven't proved otherwise.

If an end user wants to build a console but doesn't understand this 9 times out of 10 they'll ask someone to spec it for them after the person mentions what he/she wants. There are still people who fear putting a PC together even though now they're easier than before. People don't want the hassle. If it weren't the case we wouldn't have the version of the "Car mechanic" like the Geek Squad around.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 11, 2013)

1: Why are you so focused on my husband and I's laptops? Yes, we have them, yes they're expensive, what exactly does this have to do with the issue at hand? How does me having them somehow invalidate my opinion or validate yours?

2: The matter is trivial, I honestly, genuinely can't see what you're going on about. What's so complicated about it? The whole issue boils down to a: what's your system budget and b:What level of performance do you want. The degrees of performance, price, and general usage of these parts are laid out plain as day on the maker's sites, and any number of system builders sites. It literally couldn't be simpler. Yet people continue to treat it like some obfuscating magic.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 11, 2013)

Fernin said:


> 2: The matter is trivial, I honestly, genuinely can't see what you're going on about. What's so complicated about it? The whole issue boils down to a: what's your system budget and b:What level of performance do you want. The degrees of performance, price, and general usage of these parts are laid out plain as day on the maker's sites, and any number of system builders sites. It literally couldn't be simpler. Yet people continue to treat it like some obfuscating magic.


 I was told by a buddy a while ago I should get the Ray Don 7850 and now they're selling these Ray Don R9's too, what's the difference? And what's all this NVida stuff about? What's the difference between GT and GTX? Should I be looking at the Ti version? What's SuperClocked mean? How is it better? Is Ray Don better than NVida? Which one will run my games? Why should I get the expensive AMD instead of the cheaper one, they're both dedicated cards, right? They both do the same thing? Why do some of them say they need a power supply? What's that? Do I have one of those?


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 11, 2013)

^
@-@
I imagine that actually happens.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> ^
> @-@
> I imagine that actually happens.



People still don't know the difference between RAM and HDD

They keep asking me on fucking smartphones of all things "can't I just put more RAM in it?" "Can't I just get an extra battery for my iPhone" "how can I make my iPhone bigger?"

Another asked me about an old PC running XP, "which video card will let me play the latest game" "Can't I just put in a new hard drive"?

My favorites were when guys were crying how the Quadro card wasn't suitable for their FPS games.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 11, 2013)

My friend used to get that a lot when he worked at the local TigerDirect before it got shut down. It's unfortunate that it's so common.


----------



## Cocobanana (Nov 11, 2013)

I am pretty sure computers came before video games, and it was probably nice to start a video game console and get straight into the game once upon a time. Now computers are simpler and video game systems are more complicated so they're meeting each other in the middle.


----------



## Willow (Nov 11, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Not anymore really. If you've bought an AMD APU-based PC in the past year or so, you can expect pretty reliable performance in around the Xbox 360 range. Newer Haswell Intel CPU's also offer very good IGP's compared to previous generations and also provide decent performance for casual gaming.
> 
> Unless you're buying $300 shitbooks, you're likely to have something capable of gaming. A friend of mine grabbed a $600 HP with an A8 APU and at 1366x768 everything she's thrown at it runs nice and smooth.


Yeah I'm just now noticing this. I'm not sure what my previous laptop was but I know before I couldn't buy and play anything that specified a certain graphics card like NIVIDIA or Radeon. The one I have now is integrated. But I just bought New Vegas yesterday and it runs fine despite requiring a certain card. And I purposely tried staying away from anything with AMD on it at my mom's discretion. Her old laptop was AMD and was kind of crap. Granted hers was also about 10+ years old and PC gaming wasn't as huge then unless you count the Sims :u 



> You could of course argue that an XB1 or PS4 costs just $500 and $400 respectively, but that ignores the fact that a laptop is portable, has a built-in screen and battery, and also functions as a full fledged computer, which you were going to buy anyway.


To be honest, I prefer consoles to PCs though I've warmed up a little more to using Steam now that I've found games I can play. I like both but I dunno. My computer's always been for work and other stuff, hardly ever gaming unless again, you count the Sims.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 11, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> I am pretty sure computers came before video games, and it was probably nice to start a video game console and get straight into the game once upon a time. Now computers are simpler and video game systems are more complicated so they're meeting each other in the middle.




Err, yeah, computers came first.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2013)

Digitalpotato said:


> Err, yeah, computers came first.



Yeah we got geniuses replying in the threads now.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 11, 2013)

Willow said:


> To be honest, I prefer consoles to PCs though I've warmed up a little more to using Steam now that I've found games I can play. I like both but I dunno. My computer's always been for work and other stuff, hardly ever gaming unless again, you count the Sims.



I think that a greater range of games have started coming to PCs.  More games that would have stayed on console are seeing ports to PC.  Not to mention the PC is usually the first port for any of those popular indie darlings due to low development costs.  I think that between consoles, phones, and PCs, gaming has gotten more colorful and interesting.  Previously the PC was basically the home of shooters, hard core simulations and The Sims.  Now there's all sorts of stuff.  Treasure recently put their classic shooter Ikaruga through Steam Green Light and I'm eager to pick that up upon release.  A neat shooter, originally for Arcade, then Dreamcast and barely made it onto Xbox Live is coming out now for PC.  It's sorta a wonderful age for PC gaming.   Unless you're one of those dicks who think 'casuals suck' and only WANT shooters and simulations. :X


----------



## Willow (Nov 11, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> I think that a greater range of games have started coming to PCs.  More games that would have stayed on console are seeing ports to PC.  Not to mention the PC is usually the first port for any of those popular indie darlings due to low development costs.  I think that between consoles, phones, and PCs, gaming has gotten more colorful and interesting.  Previously the PC was basically the home of shooters, hard core simulations and The Sims.  Now there's all sorts of stuff.  Treasure recently put their classic shooter Ikaruga through Steam Green Light and I'm eager to pick that up upon release.  A neat shooter, originally for Arcade, then Dreamcast and barely made it onto Xbox Live is coming out now for PC.  It's sorta a wonderful age for PC gaming.   Unless you're one of those dicks who think 'casuals suck' and only WANT shooters and simulations. :X


Not at all. 

I think what kind of turned me off from PC gaming for awhile was partly the fact that I bought The Orange Box for PC and couldn't play Portal (which was originally why I bought it) without it crashing upon walking through a portal. 

And then trying Amnesia on my current laptop, it wouldn't play at all. So it just kind of seemed like I couldn't play anything I wanted :/


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Yeah we got geniuses replying in the threads now.



You'd think it'd be kind of obvious... how could video games come before computers?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2013)

Digitalpotato said:


> You'd think it'd be kind of obvious... how could video games come before computers?



Yes, but look at that person's other posts - they're all shitposts or off topic.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2013)

Digitalpotato said:


> You'd think it'd be kind of obvious... how could video games come before computers?



If you want to get all technical about it, the very first video games were available long before home computers were.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2013)

Runefox said:


> If you want to get all technical about it, the very first video games were available long before home computers were.



keyword being *home* though.


----------



## Shinwa no Kitsune (Nov 12, 2013)

I thought that consoles are becoming PCs nowadays with all the me features.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2013)

Shinwa no Kitsune said:


> I thought that consoles are becoming PCs nowadays with all the me features.



 Consoles have been using PC hardware for a while now. The Xbox classic was a Pentium 3, the Gamecube was a PowerPC (old-school Mac CPU), and the 360 and Wii were both PowerPC as well. The current gen are AMD APU's, similar to what you get in midrange laptops. The system is obviously designed differently, but the architecture has been "PC" for a while.

As for features, though, I'd call it closer to something like a Boxee Box. Even a Chromebook has potentially more utility than a game console as a general computer.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Nov 12, 2013)

What are the setbacks to buying a laptop over a desktop with the same hardware range?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2013)

lupinealchemist said:


> What are the setbacks to buying a laptop over a pc with the same hardware range?



Upgrade paths.
Costs.
Monitor quality - least with a desktop you can buy what monitor you really want.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Nov 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Upgrade paths.
> Costs.
> Monitor quality - least with a desktop you can buy what monitor you really want.


I know upgrades are a dead end, but my family believes laptops are cheaper in the long run.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2013)

lupinealchemist said:


> I know upgrades are a dead end, but my family believes laptops are cheaper in the long run.



It depends on the laptop. I generally don't pay over 500 for them because by then I can get a desktop and then add on with better features more than paying for a laptop with a shitty monitor


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Upgrade paths.
> Costs.
> Monitor quality - least with a desktop you can buy what monitor you really want.



Pretty much. Though to be fair you *can* use an external keyboard, mouse and monitor with a laptop, but that's extra cost again and unless you have a docking station, not very convenient to use. Another advantage to a desktop is that it isn't prone to overheating during extended gaming sessions.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Nov 12, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> It depends on the laptop. I generally don't pay over 500 for them because by then I can get a desktop and then add on with better features more than paying for a laptop with a shitty monitor


I pretty much need a tower with 3.5-4Ghz cpu, 4Gb ram, 1Tb HDD, and 1GB Video. I'm kinda lost on the motherboard, case and other necessities.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2013)

lupinealchemist said:


> I pretty much need a tower with 3.5-4Ghz cpu, 4Gb ram, 1Tb HDD, and 1GB Video. I'm kinda lost on the motherboard, case and other necessities.



 The GHz / clock speed of a CPU isn't a proper measure of performance anymore, and the amount of video memory isn't a measure of graphics performance either. Also, 4GB of RAM is generally the floor nowadays; 8GB is about what you'd get with a midrange laptop and if you're building a desktop, it's pretty much the sweet spot as far as single modules go price-wise. The better way to go would be to let us know what you're looking to use it for and then we can kind of zero in on what components would be best. Though this is getting a bit off-topic; Perhaps start a thread in B&B?


----------



## lupinealchemist (Nov 12, 2013)

Runefox said:


> The GHz / clock speed of a CPU isn't a proper measure of performance anymore, and the amount of video memory isn't a measure of graphics performance either. Also, 4GB of RAM is generally the floor nowadays; 8GB is about what you'd get with a midrange laptop and if you're building a desktop, it's pretty much the sweet spot as far as single modules go price-wise. The better way to go would be to let us know what you're looking to use it for and then we can kind of zero in on what components would be best. Though this is getting a bit off-topic; Perhaps start a thread in B&B?


Here we go. http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/677251-Looking-for-a-new-pc?p=3987975#post3987975


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 29, 2013)

I felt like updating this post with a demo video of my XBMC/Steam Big Picture Mode box in action.  It manages to get a pretty console like experience from what you'll see. 

[video=youtube;Aa37yA_mm_4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa37yA_mm_4&amp;feature=player_detailpage[/video]


----------



## Runefox (Nov 30, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> I felt like updating this post with a demo video of my XBMC/Steam Big Picture Mode box in action.  It manages to get a pretty console like experience from what you'll see.


Except for the giant box and mess of wires.  But XBMC/Steam BPM is a slick setup and a computer like that could easily be condensed into a small mini-ITX case about the size of the PS4 with as many wires. Like I was telling you one time before, I'd be very surprised if Valve didn't fork some of XBMC into SteamOS / BPM for the multimedia features.


----------



## Saga (Nov 30, 2013)

Willow said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I think what kind of turned me off from PC gaming for awhile was partly the fact that I bought The Orange Box for PC and couldn't play Portal (which was originally why I bought it) without it crashing upon walking through a portal.
> 
> And then trying Amnesia on my current laptop, it wouldn't play at all. So it just kind of seemed like I couldn't play anything I wanted :/


make use of this before you buy

or download a cracked version and see if it runs and then buy it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 30, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Except for the giant box and mess of wires.  But XBMC/Steam BPM is a slick setup and a computer like that could easily be condensed into a small mini-ITX case about the size of the PS4 with as many wires.



Yeah but that setup wouldn't hold 14TB of storage either.  Mine is a little more 'multipurpose' than most, but yeah, you could totally build something like that just to act as an XBMC client that streams over the network and runs Steam games locally in a much smaller form factor.  It also doesn't help that it has the modem and two routers stacked atop it.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 30, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Yeah but that setup wouldn't hold 14TB of storage either.  Mine is a little more 'multipurpose' than most, but yeah, you could totally build something like that just to act as an XBMC client that streams over the network and runs Steam games locally in a much smaller form factor.  It also doesn't help that it has the modem and two routers stacked atop it.


To be fair, you could stuff a 3TB drive into a mini-ITX, and then hang more off it. There are also mini-ITX boards and chassis that support a full size graphics card if you really wanted to go all out, though those are more cube-shaped.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 3, 2013)

And just added Dust: An Elysian Tale for $3.74 and Fez for $2.49.  While building your own 'Living Room Gaming PC' can be more expensive than a console (Though brand new out of the box Console prices are pretty high), I'd say the real savings comes in the price you'd pay for games.


----------



## Seekrit (Dec 3, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Except for the giant box and mess of wires.  But XBMC/Steam BPM is a slick setup and a computer like that could easily be condensed into a small mini-ITX case about the size of the PS4 with as many wires. Like I was telling you one time before, I'd be very surprised if Valve didn't fork some of XBMC into SteamOS / BPM for the multimedia features.



Sounds like a perfect setup for indie gaming and general media watchery. Inexpensive too I'd imagine, depending on your graphical requirements. Hmm, I might look into this.



AshleyAshes said:


> And just added Dust: An Elysian Tale for $3.74 and Fez for $2.49.  While building your own 'Living Room Gaming PC' can be more expensive than a console (Though brand new out of the box Console prices are pretty high), I'd say the real savings comes in the price you'd pay for games.



Dem Steam sales. I got 20 games for about 60 euro in the last week, or the price of one PS4 game. If you stick to the sales I doubt many people would come close to spending the price of a new console on games.

Nice video btw.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 3, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> Sounds like a perfect setup for indie gaming and general media watchery. Inexpensive too I'd imagine, depending on your graphical requirements. Hmm, I might look into this.



There can also be some interesting upgrade paths.  Mine for example, running on a quad core AMD processor has more than enough CPU power for media playback.  While it uses DXVA for hardware accelerated h.264 video up to 2K, it an use the CPU to decode stuff that can't be hardware decoded.  XBMC recently added multicore CPU decoding through FFMPEG and that now allows my XBMC box to decode 4K h.264 (Using 40-60% of the CPU though).  So through software alone, my high def HTPC can now do 4K.  Since it supports HDMI 1.4a, it can also do 4K output to a 4K TV.  (Not that I have such, but I'm just saying.)

Though XBMC doesn't have much in the way of DOWNscaling algorithms so the moire from downscaling is a bit of a problem for now:


----------

