Topic: How long PC's last as gaming platforms?

[scottws]

Isn't this why PC gaming is going to hell, really?  You can't depend on your PC to run anything right 3 months after you spend a fortune on it.  There was a time when only PCs could do the graphics right, a relatively short one, between the SNES and the PS2.  Not anymore.

I don't think that's true at all.  My old computer was fine from 2002 to 2007.

[Cobra951]

With enough money in upgrades to buy 2-3 X360s, my game PC was fine from 2000-2005.  In that equation, you also have to factor in my time, skill and general understanding of what has to happen to keep the PC current.  Most people are going to be faced with buying a brand-new pre-built game PC, or a new console.  You and I are exceptions.  If PCs offer a substantially better experience than consoles, then many people will put up with the much-higher expense for a shorter period of utility.  Otherwise, the only big plus left on the PC side is mouse control for FPS games.

OT, though.  Let's go to a new thread on this, if the discussion keeps going, maybe with Que's help?  Wait.  Are you a mod too?

[Quemaqua]

If you want to go into that topic, just make a new thread.  I can't move individual posts from one thread to another, only merge entire threads (unless there's some magical options I've been missing all these years).

[idolminds]

Que, see the "Split Topic" option next to the Quote, Modify, Remove options? I believe you can do it from there.

[Quemaqua]

Bloody brilliant.  Consider me uneducated.

My own two cents - you can consider this a problem, but only for certain people.  Guys like JB (iPPi) who start complaining about possibly not having 60 FPS when running a game at full detail with 8 gajillion pixels by 5 gajillion pixels... to me, they're complaining about absolutely nothing.  No offense, dude.  Once you get above a certain standard you're just adding luxury on top of luxury, to the point where the human eye can barely even discern the difference when you're actually playing.  I'll probably be playing BioShock at 1024x768 on my non-widescreen monitor, and you know what?  I really just don't care.

[scottws]

With enough money in upgrades to buy 2-3 X360s, my game PC was fine from 2000-2005.  In that equation, you also have to factor in my time, skill and general understanding of what has to happen to keep the PC current.  Most people are going to be faced with buying a brand-new pre-built game PC, or a new console.  You and I are exceptions.  If PCs offer a substantially better experience than consoles, then many people will put up with the much-higher expense for a shorter period of utility.  Otherwise, the only big plus left on the PC side is mouse control for FPS games.

OT, though.  Let's go to a new thread on this, if the discussion keeps going, maybe with Que's help?  Wait.  Are you a mod too?

Split done.

Well, I admit that I did upgrade my videocard during that period, but my original videocard was a holdover from a prior system so I consider it a wash.  Other than that though, any upgrades I did were pure projects/geekiness, e.g. replacing on-board software Highpoint RAID for a true hardware RAID solution w/ SATA interface.

I still feel that PC gaming is quite viable and a gaming machine is no less worth the time, effort, and money now than it was five or ten years ago.  I feel that some games are just better on PCs or at least or are better suited, regardless of the strides made in the graphical capabilities of consoles.

[MysterD]

I don't think that's true at all.  My old computer was fine from 2002 to 2007.

My PC here I bought around 2½ years ago still RUNS all the new games that ain't Vista Exclusives, for the most part, no problemo. I have upgraded twice -- added more RAM and a new hard drive. THAT IS IT, so far.

I'd guess if I do make a change, vid card might be next.

So I can run STALKER in HIGH Details in 1024x768, but I can't run it in full detail w/ say all dynamic shadows bouncing off every friggin' single solitary object in there w/out the framerate staying over 23 frames -- like say STALKER.

Oh, big flippin' deal. I still got it in HIGH, but w/ All Static Shadow instead. Static shadows are fine -- and the game still looks awesome.

[Cobra951]

To be honest, I bought my PC at a very bad time.  It has the original P4 socket, which went obsolete like a year later.  It has the original P4 memory too--dual-channel RDRAM.  Expensive, and eventually abandoned.  It had Windows Me, which with effort I got running as well as any 9X platform, but still, it's no XP.  There's a lot of luck involved in such purchases, though.  If you need a new PC at any given point, you're going to get what's current, even it gets extensively revised a year later.

I'd be happy with games running smoothly at as little as 800x600, although my sweet spot has been 1024x768 for a long time.  Now with fixed-pixel screens, I guess 1360x768 is more or less mandatory on my current screen.  A constant 30 fps would do, although I much prefer the software keeping up with the hardware, meaning 60 fps on an LCD.  No way in hell could my PC do that with new games.  I'm sure Bioshock would be a slideshow on my 5th-gen NVidia card (which can't handle version 2 and up shaders well at all).  Upgrading this enough would also require upgrading the power supply, and that would still leave me stuck with a 2.4GHz Northwood P4.  Not happening.  And since I have the console alternative, inferior though it may be, I don't care nearly as much as I once would.

[MysterD]

To be honest, I bought my PC at a very bad time.  It has the original P4 socket, which went obsolete like a year later.  It has the original P4 memory too--dual-channel RDRAM.  Expensive, and eventually abandoned.  It had Windows Me, which with effort I got running as well as any 9X platform, but still, it's no XP.  There's a lot of luck involved in such purchases, though.  If you need a new PC at any given point, you're going to get what's current, even it gets extensively revised a year later.

Usually, every 4-5 years, I buy a brand new PC. That has always worked well for me, in my gaming experiences.

And since I buy and own so many damn games, if I don't meet a brand new game's requirements, I go and play some of the other games I got laying around that'll work on my current rig -- yup, until I go buy a new one.

I'd be happy with games running smoothly at as little as 800x600, although my sweet spot has been 1024x768 for a long time.  Now with fixed-pixel screens, I guess 1360x768 is more or less mandatory on my current screen.  A constant 30 fps would do, although I much prefer the software keeping up with the hardware, meaning 60 fps on an LCD.  No way in hell could my PC do that with new games.

25 FPS and above works for me.

I'm sure Bioshock would be a slideshow on my 5th-gen NVidia card (which can't handle version 2 and up shaders well at all).

I don't think that would even run on your rig...
...Bioshock requires a GF 6600 card as a bare minimum.

[JacksRag(e)]

You know, I put together my computer about 6 months ago and it can run basically anything I throw at it.  I've got a 7900 GS, 2 gigs of ram and a 6400 core 2 duo...but for the life of me, I can't figure out why I can't run Stalker.  It's kinda sad.
But in any case, it won't really matter when I get Bioshock.
But I'm not gonna worry too much about it, yet.  I'm happy with my processor and if I ever need it (which is doubtful) I'll just upgrade to more RAM later on.  I am gonna worry about getting a new video card, which is gonna require me to replace the power supply.  But then I found this little baby.  http://www.techdepot.com/pro/product.asp?stchg=1&productid=5296195&affid=10000485
So, I imagine when the time comes, I'll pick up an 8800 along with one of these.

[MysterD]

You know, I put together my computer about 6 months ago and it can run basically anything I throw at it.  I've got a 7900 GS, 2 gigs of ram and a 6400 core 2 duo...but for the life of me, I can't figure out why I can't run Stalker.  It's kinda sad.

That's shocking -- STALKER should run on that rig no problem.

Are you running on XP? Vista?
STALKER and Vista are known to not get along too well...
Make sure you put in the newest STALKER Patch, BTW -- knocks out some Vista issues w/ STALKER.

Can you get the game to boot?
Or are the framerates terrible???

Turning off Dynamic Shadows should help your framerates, if you got those framerate kind of issues.

[W7RE]

I'm in a similar situation as Cobra. If you buy at just the right (or wrong) time, you have issues later. When I left for college I had a 4 year old Dell (thank you Dell, for making my model pretty much non-upgradeable), so I built a $1000 machine that would run pretty much anything out there. Now about 4 years later, I've upgraded the ram a bit and the video card, but not much else.

Athlon XP 2500+
1 gig of DDR
X800 256MB (AGP)

World of Warcraft, a 3 year old game, averages 15 frames per second in town. I raid at 8-10 fps, but only because I crank the graphics way down for that. I downloaded the Overlord demo and had to set it to "low" graphics settings for it to be playable.

The upgrades for this system are obsolete, because of the introduction of DDR2, PCI-Express, and 64 bit processors. If I want a new CPU, I need a new motherboard, which would require new ram and video card. ANYTHING I try to upgrade will require that I replace pretty much the whole system. The only things I could really carry over to a new system are the HDDs, CD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. The case is a Shuttle XPC, so even that would have to be replaced.

[JacksRag(e)]

That's shocking -- STALKER should run on that rig no problem.

Are you running on XP? Vista?

Yea, I was running it on Vista.  I should have thought of that, too.  Mmm, it was the only game to give me problems, so I quickly forgot about it.  And I kinda gave up on Stalker because it just gave me the worst headache, too.  Though I did try turning all the settings down and everything as well.  Still ran like molasses.  Bleah.

[MysterD]

Yea, I was running it on Vista.  I should have thought of that, too.  Mmm, it was the only game to give me problems, so I quickly forgot about it.

Upon the game's release, it was giving lots of Vista users lots of trouble. From what I know and have read in the past (namely on STALKER's Official Forums), w/ the newest STALKER patch (Patch 1.0003), it does run on Vista better, but it still doesn't run that good -- desktop crashes, glitches, and all kinds of other Vista-related issues are known to exist for this game just b/c you're running it on Vista. 

GSC is waiting on THQ to approve of their newest patch for STALKER (Patch 1.0004). I would bet that it will help sort out more Vista-related issues, since it's probably one of the big concerns gamers seem to have w/ the game.

And I kinda gave up on Stalker because it just gave me the worst headache, too.  Though I did try turning all the settings down and everything as well.  Still ran like molasses.  Bleah.

You shouldn't be having those kind of issues on even Vista, w/ settings turned down...

Yes, the game has some Vista issues w/ some CTD's, glitches, and the in-game performance/framerate, but it should be running better than that on Vista -- especially w/ your monster rig.

This is a Guide to help gamers get better performance out of STALKER.

It should help, as it has tips on how to get it going better on Vista, if you got issues w/ it -- click me!

[scottws]

I'm in a similar situation as Cobra. If you buy at just the right (or wrong) time, you have issues later. When I left for college I had a 4 year old Dell (thank you Dell, for making my model pretty much non-upgradeable), so I built a $1000 machine that would run pretty much anything out there. Now about 4 years later, I've upgraded the ram a bit and the video card, but not much else.

Athlon XP 2500+
1 gig of DDR
X800 256MB (AGP)

World of Warcraft, a 3 year old game, averages 15 frames per second in town. I raid at 8-10 fps, but only because I crank the graphics way down for that. I downloaded the Overlord demo and had to set it to "low" graphics settings for it to be playable.

The upgrades for this system are obsolete, because of the introduction of DDR2, PCI-Express, and 64 bit processors. If I want a new CPU, I need a new motherboard, which would require new ram and video card. ANYTHING I try to upgrade will require that I replace pretty much the whole system. The only things I could really carry over to a new system are the HDDs, CD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. The case is a Shuttle XPC, so even that would have to be replaced.

Well, I feel that AMD CPU-based systems are less upgradable.  Think about how many sockets they've had recently.  Socket A and then 4 different sockets for the Opteron and Athlon64.  And then you have the multiple FSB speed switches during socket A to consider as well. Meanwhile Intel has had something like 2 through the P4 and Core series.

But yeah I was sort of with you there with my old AMD Athlon XP 2400+ based system.  I could upgrade like one or two steps up on the CPU side with my motherboard (socket A, 266Mhz FSB) but even the most advanced CPU for that setup was long obsolete.  I would have needed a new motherboard, and in turn new RAM and a new videocard.

But still, I got 5+ solid years out of that system with minimal true upgrades, and now that it is retired from gaming it is dutifully serving as a file and web server.

[Quemaqua]

Really the only thing I need right now is a new video card.  I could really use an 8800-something.  My 7800 should still service Bioshock okay (one of the PC developers said he ran his game at like 1024x768 with all the details on with a 7800 and got a pretty much perfect experience), but it'll be really nice to play through the game again on a nice, high-end video card.  Even more so if somebody figures out a way to hack DX10 and bring it to XP.

 ... I can dream, can't I?

[Jedi]

The thing I don't like about PCs as gaming platform is that to keep said platform in the game you need to upgrade it. At one stage I didn’t mind it, I liked it was the thing I would point out when comparing PCs to consoles, but now fuck it, I don’t want the worry of will this game run on my PC or will this card play well with my motherboard. Yeah stuff it, give me a platform that’s static that removes those concerns.

That said the PC as a gaming platform is more agile and adaptive but it suffers at the hands of publishers and distributors e.g. STEAM, and the vista only conditions things like that.

I’m certainly on the fence I don’t think any one platform is better and because the PC can be upgraded then it becomes subject to your personal budget as to how long your PC remains a gaming platform.

[Cobra951]

Damn.  Best post in the thread, Jedi.  Short, to the point--all the points, really.

[Quemaqua]

It all comes down to whether or not you feel it's all worth it.  Personally, I feel I've gotten back every bit of effort I've invested and them some, to the point where I'd sacrifice any and all consoles in a heartbeat for my PC.  I love my consoles too, but the rewards I've gotten from having a great PC have just far, far outclassed all other considerations.

[MysterD]

It all comes down to whether or not you feel it's all worth it.  Personally, I feel I've gotten back every bit of effort I've invested and them some, to the point where I'd sacrifice any and all consoles in a heartbeat for my PC.

Agreed.

Every time I upgrade my PC, it's normally a necessary upgrade. I don't do upgrades for the sake of upgrading. I do it when I need it -- and when it's at a worthwhile price to me.

RAM's usually a cheap upgrade. I don't mind doing that.

Though, the vid card is usually one of the last changes I make.

When...
1. A good number of brand new released games that I want to play NOW start suddenly calling for a vid card I don't have as a bare minimum requirement
AND
2. There's no other older games I feel like playing to hold me over 'til I do the upgrade...
Then it's time to change the vid card.

That often takes a good while to do a vid card upgrade, since I own so many games I have yet to play AND finish that my current PC should run no problem.

And usually, when I do an upgrade, I'm very glad I did it...

I love my consoles too, but the rewards I've gotten from having a great PC have just far, far outclassed all other considerations.

That is pretty much why I ain't bought a next-gen console -- you take in account all of the modding, SDK's, custom PC settings -- and all of that PC Goodness -- I think I'll take a PC version of a game over a console version 8 times out of 10.

Plus, WAY TOO many of the console games I'm interested in are either multi-platformed to the PC OR get ported at a later date to the PC.

[Quemaqua]

Well, I think it's just as stupid to avoid consoles the way you do (no really, I mean that).  You're missing more than half of what gaming has to offer.  Granted I love my PC and think it's the best thing ever, and I think some of the experiences I've had with it have been the most potent things I can imagine, but you're missing as much if not more on the console side, and not just in terms of sheer volume.  Some of the best games I've ever played have been on consoles, and these are games that will never, ever see a PC port.  So don't take my PC fanboyism as some message that sequestering yourself is okay.  I think that's just stupid.

[idolminds]

You cant play Okami or Ico on the PC. Right there, you must own consoles.

[MysterD]

You cant play Okami or Ico on the PC. Right there, you must own consoles.

Don't forget Zelda games, Mario games, Mega Man Collection, Ninja Gaiden series, and Dead Rising -- that's just to name a few there.

[Xessive]

I'll occasionally play a console game on my bro's PS2, but honestly the only real deterrent I have is control. Therefore I have set some rules for myself.. Ok 1 rule.. Never play FPS games (or any game that requires aiming for the majority of the time) on consoles. I don't want to hate a game just because I have difficulty with its controls.

Beyond that I really have no desire to spend money on something other than my PC when it comes to games.