or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Xbox One and PlayStation 4 Roundup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Xbox One and PlayStation 4 Roundup - Page 20

post #571 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by lulimet View Post

The only reason I see for someone to build their own PC is that they want a certain custom configuration because otherwise it is not cost effective.
Just the other day I saw a HP desktop PC with really good specs for $650. I priced the components from newegg and amazon and the total to build the same configuration came out to $830. So it would cost more if you built it yourself.

Major manufacturers can sell their products at lower prices because they get much better prices for parts because they buy them in bulk.
No wonder Sony and MS can sell their consoles for $400-500 and not lose money or even make a small profit.

Yes. I picked up a Dell Corei5 recently for only $400 to record from my IP camera and for TiVo Desktop. 12GB dual channel memory and a 1TB drive. Plus Windows 8 on it. I could not put a PC together for that little. I got an HP core i5 this Summer for my main PC that was 3.4Ghz with 3.9Ghz turbo, 12GB dual channel memory, Win8, and a 2TB drive for around $500. I used to build all my own PCs but now I don't even bother because it's so much cheaper and easier to get something like this. I just throw in a couple of BD Rom drives and a couple of SSDs and I'm ready to go. Of course these aren't gaming PCs though. I stopped gaming on PCs back in 2005 and have no desire to go back to the constant upgrades. I used to build a new PC every few months in the late 90's and early 2000's.
post #572 of 903
Not to mention that high end video cards these days can cost $600 and more, and if you want to run an SLI config, forget it. If you want to play the latest greatest PC games at the highest graphical settings and resolution supported, etc, then be prepared to spend at least $1200 on a gaming box (case, mobo, cpu, memory, gpu, HS+F, quality PSU to run that $600 GPU, sound card, etc). Then add the OS, gaming peripherals, decent surround speakers, gaming mouse, keyboard, and a nice big 27" monitor with good response time and there's ZERO argument about what is more cost effective.

Even if you just plug all that into your TV and forsake the monitor, my 27" monitor was only $300, which was probably one of the cheaper components of my gaming rig. Dropping $4-500 on a console is a no brainer for most people. Especially when most people have Dell and HP crap which are barely upgradeable to a gaming PC. Most video cards won't even FIT into a pre-built system like that.
post #573 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

Not to mention that high end video cards these days can cost $600 and more, and if you want to run an SLI config, forget it. If you want to play the latest greatest PC games at the highest graphical settings and resolution supported, etc, then be prepared to spend at least $1200 on a gaming box (case, mobo, cpu, memory, gpu, HS+F, quality PSU to run that $600 GPU, sound card, etc). Then add the OS, gaming peripherals, decent surround speakers, gaming mouse, keyboard, and a nice big 27" monitor with good response time and there's ZERO argument about what is more cost effective.

Even if you just plug all that into your TV and forsake the monitor, my 27" monitor was only $300, which was probably one of the cheaper components of my gaming rig. Dropping $4-500 on a console is a no brainer for most people. Especially when most people have Dell and HP crap which are barely upgradeable to a gaming PC. Most video cards won't even FIT into a pre-built system like that.

I was surprised with my Dell and HP Corei5 PCs all the expansion slots they had. If I wanted to I could have put the same video cards in from a Home built system. Although I would have needed a beefier power supply.
post #574 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

Not to mention that high end video cards these days can cost $600 and more, and if you want to run an SLI config, forget it. If you want to play the latest greatest PC games at the highest graphical settings and resolution supported, etc, then be prepared to spend at least $1200 on a gaming box (case, mobo, cpu, memory, gpu, HS+F, quality PSU to run that $600 GPU, sound card, etc). Then add the OS, gaming peripherals, decent surround speakers, gaming mouse, keyboard, and a nice big 27" monitor with good response time and there's ZERO argument about what is more cost effective.

Even if you just plug all that into your TV and forsake the monitor, my 27" monitor was only $300, which was probably one of the cheaper components of my gaming rig. Dropping $4-500 on a console is a no brainer for most people. Especially when most people have Dell and HP crap which are barely upgradeable to a gaming PC. Most video cards won't even FIT into a pre-built system like that.

Of course that's not cost effective, but I don't think anyone would claim that a entire high end PC gaming station is. The valid comparison is to a steam machine - they start at $499 with a legit video card (R270) in a console sized enclosure. Packed in with a steam controller, and loaded with steam OS. It's very much in the same price range. I personally wouldn't want to go without windows yet (add another $99), and a cheap handheld keyboard/touchpad ($20). But even $619 is still in the same ballpark. And that's a legit gaming PC, not some dinky little integrated graphics box.

As long as you can order it dual boot, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend that to any of my friends.
post #575 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mnemonic View Post

Oh man! twisted metal is not a good game to use as a benchmark. smile.gif

Games I've had great luck with free online play are GTA5, AC4, resident evil 5 and 6. Dead space 2 and 3. And the list goes on. All free mulitplayer, still working today, and you don't have to pay to play.

yes, I realize some games work just fine on the free psn. my buddy plays COD all the time, and when I'm at his house it's pretty consistent, no problems.

my point was just that if you pay for something, you get some assurances and perhaps recourse. if my cable doesn't work, I can call them up, bitch, and some tech will come out to fix the problem. if the free OTA channels don't work, I'm SOL.

still not perfect though, there's no guarantee i'll get good service just because I'm paying for it. just gives customers a good right to bitch if they don't, which hopefully is enough motivation for them to do it right the first time.
post #576 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Of course that's not cost effective, but I don't think anyone would claim that a entire high end PC gaming station is. The valid comparison is to a steam machine - they start at $499 with a legit video card (R270) in a console sized enclosure. Packed in with a steam controller, and loaded with steam OS. It's very much in the same price range. I personally wouldn't want to go without windows yet (add another $99), and a cheap handheld keyboard/touchpad ($20). But even $619 is still in the same ballpark. And that's a legit gaming PC, not some dinky little integrated graphics box.

As long as you can order it dual boot, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend that to any of my friends.

Agreed, however you'd be surprised how many people do say, "Teh PC is elite, just build your own gaming PC and have it be more powerful and cheaper than the newest consoles!". It's a load of horse*&^%. My guess is most of these people assume you have everything you need except a GPU (a decent GPU can be had for about $250-300 I suppose). Reality is that most people have pre-built systems, or laptops for that matter, that won't be able to handle the size of these cards, and let's not forget the PSU is not upgradeable at all. To build your own, well, see my last post....

The Steambox is going to directly compete with consoles because that's exactly what it is. And I'll be getting one of those too smile.gif
post #577 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

Agreed, however you'd be surprised how many people do say, "Teh PC is elite, just build your own gaming PC and have it be more powerful and cheaper than the newest consoles!". It's a load of horse*&^%. My guess is most of these people assume you have everything you need except a GPU (a decent GPU can be had for about $250-300 I suppose). Reality is that most people have pre-built systems, or laptops for that matter, that won't be able to handle the size of these cards, and let's not forget the PSU is not upgradeable at all. To build your own, well, see my last post....

The Steambox is going to directly compete with consoles because that's exactly what it is. And I'll be getting one of those too smile.gif

Yeah, I guess my main point is every year PC gets easier and more couch and noob friendly, and every year consoles seem to bring on another traditional PC irritation (patches, buggy games, unfinished software, entering lots of codes etc).

A few years ago there was a huge list of pros and cons to each side. Nowadays the cons list has gotten much shorter on the PC side, and much longer on the console side. If steamOS takes off and fulfills it's promise, eventually it will come down to a single factor of the hardware costing a little more, but getting so much more value in return. That's going to tempt away a lot of traditional console gamers. Ten years ago they were completely different worlds, nowadays they're far more alike than different.
post #578 of 903
In my experience (roughly 30 years of PC and console gaming), PCs are just incredibly unreliable. Over that time period, I've probably owned 10 PCs (not all used for gaming), and 20 different consoles. I've had component failures of some kind with every single PC I've owned (CD/DVD drives, hard drives, video cards, USB ports, even a bad memory stick one time). Just this past week, all of the USB ports on my 2 year old PC failed. I bought a new USB card at Best Buy, but it required driver installation to work. I discovered that if I did a hard power cycle (physically unplug the computer), one of the USB ports would work for about 5 minutes. So I had to boot up my computer and install the drivers within 5 minutes. Fun times! Also, PC performance generally degrades over time due to hard disk fragmentation, additional background services running, etc.

Contrast that with my console experience, and I have only had one hardware failure (original Xbox 360 with RROD). The fact that I can turn on my consoles and reasonably expect them to work (and perform at the same level they did yesterday) is a HUGE check in the "pros" column for consoles.
post #579 of 903
Back in my day, we had to edit our own config.sys file to use more than 1 MB of RAM, and we liked it! B-)
post #580 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mnemonic View Post

Back in my day, we had to edit our own config.sys file to use more than 1 MB of RAM, and we liked it! B-)

Damn straight! Oh the days of huge ass ISA sound cards, EGA graphics, configuring IRQs, autoexec.bat and all that good stuff. smile.gif

Remember when 3D cards were actually separate from your 2D card, and you had to run a wire between them outside your PC? And then you also needed a separate sound card, network card and modem? And you crossed your fingers and hoped everything worked (if you still had the floppy disks with the drivers.) It took real skill to build a PC even just 15 years ago.

Nowadays you buy a case, motherboard, some memory and a HDD. Even the video card is optional. Put them in the only slots that they fit, put the windows disc in and install with a few clicks and everything just works. To hear anyone say that it's sooo complicated that they can't handle it just blows my mind. I bet a 3 year old could do it, seriously.
post #581 of 903
How about using a hole punch to allow writing to the second side of a floppy. Man I feel old...
post #582 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsaville View Post

How about using a hole punch to allow writing to the second side of a floppy. Man I feel old...

Yup. Back when floppy disks were ACTUALLY floppy!

My personal favorite bit of old school PC gaming stupidity is adding a Yamaha wavetable midi daughterboard to my sound card. It was so good it blew my mind at the time, but to think I used to add expansion cards to my expansion cards...it just seems so ridiculous in retrospect.

PC gamers nowadays have it so damn easy. I used to have to reformat windows 95 like every 3 months, because performance would be absolutely terrible if you didn't. Not a hair slower, but a major slodown you could feel. Windows would crash if you breathed on it the wrong way. Viruses were so easy to get by just putting the wrong floppy disk in your drive, and they were so nasty they could even nuke your hardware. (michaelangelo took down a motherboard of mine) You had to manually search for game/software patches every now and then, it was unthinkable that your OS, games, drivers and software would all automatically update.

Not to mention a midrange gaming rig would easily run you $2k....in 90's dollars. And the PC boxes were HUGE...I just bought a mid tower and my wife couldn't get over how big it was. She could hardly believe it was "mid" anything.

Back then a console cost $199, you just shoved a cartridge in the slot, flicked a switch and you were in game within seconds. It was so black and white there was almost no comparison worth making. Nowadays they're slightly different shades of grey...which is why I'm so certain that hardware updates are coming to the consoles. It's the endgame of the convergence that's been happening over decades.
post #583 of 903
I remember how nasty virus' were back then, one made my motherboard melt, and I have no clue how I got it. (No dial up at the time)
post #584 of 903
To me it's all about exclusives.
PC will never get the glory games that came out for the PS3. The PS3 exclusives made me choose the PS4, because I know Sony will support it with top class exclusives.
post #585 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Yeah, I guess my main point is every year PC gets easier and more couch and noob friendly, and every year consoles seem to bring on another traditional PC irritation (patches, buggy games, unfinished software, entering lots of codes etc).

A few years ago there was a huge list of pros and cons to each side. Nowadays the cons list has gotten much shorter on the PC side, and much longer on the console side. If steamOS takes off and fulfills it's promise, eventually it will come down to a single factor of the hardware costing a little more, but getting so much more value in return. That's going to tempt away a lot of traditional console gamers. Ten years ago they were completely different worlds, nowadays they're far more alike than different.

I think the cons list has gotten smaller for both. actually.

there used to be a lot more limitations and compromises to using a console that aren't true anymore as well. the way you wrote that, almost made it sound like consoles were by far the best option 10yrs ago, but I don't think that was the case. you're last sentence is really what matters. both pc and consoles have made improvements, and this had brought them closer than ever before. closer in graphics, and performance, closer in what games are available, and closer in convenience and reliability
post #586 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post


I think the cons list has gotten smaller for both. actually.

there used to be a lot more limitations and compromises to using a console that aren't true anymore as well. the way you wrote that, almost made it sound like consoles were by far the best option 10yrs ago, but I don't think that was the case. you're last sentence is really what matters. both pc and consoles have made improvements, and this had brought them closer than ever before. closer in graphics, and performance, closer in what games are available, and closer in convenience and reliability

 

True, but I mean relatively speaking. It's only a con if one is better than the other. They've come closer in some ways, but I think PC has been much faster to pick up the good parts of a console than vice versa.

post #587 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

Let me just say that I will end up with both consoles and I already have a pretty decent gaming PC that I use as well, so I'm far from bias on the subject. However, I will assert that MS completely destroyed Sony on their last run. This time, I bought the One first only because it's more available at this time. I have no complaints to log against it. It's fast, the games look great, the HDMI passthrough works well and the TV app is better than my cable providers guide. The instant on, Kinect features, voice commands, and task switching make the experience so much smoother than the 360 dashboard - and leagues beyond what the PS3 failed to ever do.

I also can't wait to get my hands on a PS4, but until then, the XOne is just plain awesome - just need more games!!!

I even signed up for Xbox Music which I vowed I would never do, but it's just so easy to find and play anything you want just by talking to the Kinect, no controller needed, and I control my AVRs volume from my phone so I can just walk around the house doing whatever the hell I want, barking out voice commands and turning it all the way up.

how did MS destroy sony last time?

sony sold about 80 mil ps3's and ms sold about 80 mil 360's, sounds pretty equal to me, just looking at the install base.
post #588 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag.jase View Post

how did MS destroy sony last time?

sony sold about 80 mil ps3's and ms sold about 80 mil 360's, sounds pretty equal to me, just looking at the install base.

the growth in ps3 sales is huge.
post #589 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag.jase View Post

how did MS destroy sony last time?

sony sold about 80 mil ps3's and ms sold about 80 mil 360's, sounds pretty equal to me, just looking at the install base.

Microsoft has a 15 million lead in the US. Microsoft also started making money on the console in the first year (until rrod killed all those profits for a couple of years)

PS3 didn't start becoming truly profitable until 2011/12 when the console itself was finally sold for a profit. (The division was profitable a few years prior)

PS3 sales exploded after it hit $299, and every year Sony was closing the worldwide gap. Now they are neck and neck as the generation closes. Even if Sony ends up selling more units in the end, I would say Microsoft beat them for the generation. (And even if both end up outselling the Wii, there is no question that it steamrolled for three solid years, so I have to give Nintendo the crown)
post #590 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Microsoft has a 15 million lead in the US. Microsoft also started making money on the console in the first year (until rrod killed all those profits for a couple of years)

PS3 didn't start becoming truly profitable until 2011/12 when the console itself was finally sold for a profit. (The division was profitable a few years prior)

PS3 sales exploded after it hit $299, and every year Sony was closing the worldwide gap. Now they are neck and neck as the generation closes. Even if Sony ends up selling more units in the end, I would say Microsoft beat them for the generation. (And even if both end up outselling the Wii, there is no question that it steamrolled for three solid years, so I have to give Nintendo the crown)

I'm well aware of those facts, but the bottom line is they both sold roughly the same. So saying MS destroyed sony is not true.
post #591 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag.jase View Post

I'm well aware of those facts, but the bottom line is they both sold roughly the same. So saying MS destroyed sony is not true.

Sony caught up worldwide, but Microsoft made more money over a longer period, and you can't deny that the 360 did destroy the PS3 in the US. A 15 million lead is nothing to take lightly.

Given how Nvidia is refusing to help shrink the die down from 45nm, I doubt the PS3 will gain enough steam or drop enough in price to truly overtake Microsoft. Expect the PS3 to be phased out in late 2016 around it's tenth birthday if they can't manage a die shrink. The PS4 may actually be cheaper than the PS3 by then since it was built with price drops in mind.

Microsoft outmatched Sony at every turn with the 360, taking the core gamer by storm for four years and then switching gears to the casual crowd with Kinect and beat them again, Move never caught on. It is quite easy to say that Microsoft destroyed Sony last gen, because they truly did.

Going into this new generation however, Sony has the clear advantage right out of the gate and both companies positions seem to have reversed.
post #592 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Sony caught up worldwide, but Microsoft made more money over a longer period, and you can't deny that the 360 did destroy the PS3 in the US. A 15 million lead is nothing to take lightly.

Given how Nvidia is refusing to help shrink the die down from 45nm, I doubt the PS3 will gain enough steam or drop enough in price to truly overtake Microsoft. Expect the PS3 to be phased out in late 2016 around it's tenth birthday if they can't manage a die shrink. The PS4 may actually be cheaper than the PS3 by then since it was built with price drops in mind.

Microsoft outmatched Sony at every turn with the 360, taking the core gamer by storm for four years and then switching gears to the casual crowd with Kinect and beat them again, Move never caught on. It is quite easy to say that Microsoft destroyed Sony last gen, because they truly did.

Going into this new generation however, Sony has the clear advantage right out of the gate and both companies positions seem to have reversed.

I saw a graph before showing how much both MS/Nintendo/sony made from their console business. MS made the least, I can't find it atm sorry. I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with the word "destroy" in this case.

If you want to say MS did slightly better, that would be fair, but destroy? MS might have sold more in the states, but as you said yourself worldwide they are about the same. MS also had a one year lead and sony still caught up, and sony had a horrible start due to their arrogance.

I don't think either MS or sony "won" last gen. I consider it a draw for the most part.
post #593 of 903
That graph likely covered multiple generations. Microsoft is still trying to make back all the money they lost with the first Xbox and it sours the 360 numbers.
post #594 of 903
Destroyed, yeah right. Keep dreaming dude.

Walked into best but today and they are hawking Xbox ones at the front door, where they usually put the open box or overstocked items. Ps4 is sold out! Apparently there is a waiting list for them.
post #595 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mnemonic View Post

Walked into best but today and they are hawking Xbox ones at the front door, where they usually put the open box or overstocked items. Ps4 is sold out! Apparently there is a waiting list for them.

Some info on Best Buy stock levels from someone with inventory access on a large level.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=96803681

His district has over 6000 in the distribution center and they arrive far faster than they go out. (Each store sells an average of 30 units a week) PS4 is sold out and sells out the day they arrive.
post #596 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Some info on Best Buy stock levels from someone with inventory access on a large level.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=96803681

His district has over 6000 in the distribution center and they arrive far faster than they go out. (Each store sells an average of 30 units a week) PS4 is sold out and sells out the day they arrive.

If that's the case wouldn't be surprise to see Sony eeking out a win in NA for this launch period. Its going to be close, but fulling the distribution channels obviously isn't working for MS.
post #597 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

True, but I mean relatively speaking. It's only a con if one is better than the other. They've come closer in some ways, but I think PC has been much faster to pick up the good parts of a console than vice versa.

yeah I guess so. either way, you're right that they are closer than ever before
post #598 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag.jase View Post

how did MS destroy sony last time?

sony sold about 80 mil ps3's and ms sold about 80 mil 360's, sounds pretty equal to me, just looking at the install base.

I assumed he was basing that on his experience with both consoles

I can say, for me, the 360 had about 100x as many hours on it as my ps3. I only have 3 games for the ps3, and two of them were bundled with it(I haven't opened uncharted yet either)

that doesn't mean the 360 is better, but it does mean MS had to 'lose' my business, and I think they may have.
post #599 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Some info on Best Buy stock levels from someone with inventory access on a large level.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=96803681

His district has over 6000 in the distribution center and they arrive far faster than they go out. (Each store sells an average of 30 units a week) PS4 is sold out and sells out the day they arrive.

For comparison, how many PS4 units do they go through? Does each store get 500, 100, or 10? Otherwise saying they sellout each time has no reference. If each store sold out of 100 units each time, would mean more than if it was ten. But without knowing the numbers it doesn't mean as much.
post #600 of 903
Justin Bieber sells out immediately too.

Units sold has nothing to do with the quality of the merchandise.

On that note, I just bought a ps4 and had no trouble finding one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Xbox One and PlayStation 4 Roundup