Is "PC Gaming" becoming too much of a money drain, now that it's "popular"?

[VirtualLarry]

It's not just the "PC Gaming" section at BestBuy, with overpriced video cards, headsets, and mice/keyboards.

Now that Intel officially recognizes that "PC Gamers" is an actual demographic to be targeted, and they appear to be bucking the trend of downward PC sales, instead, buying towards the top of the product stack for CPUs, GPUs, etc. - is this hobby becoming too expensive for the "common man"?

I've seen posts from people that literally want people that only have dual-cores (no matter how fast) to be "burned" - that only quad-cores are acceptable for a PC Gamer.

Likewise, I've seen trends that people seem to think that you have to upgrade to one (or more!) of the newest NVidia gaming cards EVERY GENERATION if you "want to game on PC".

When did the PC Gaming hobby stop being an all-inclusive club, if you had a PC and at least a moderate GPU, and a wired mouse / keyboard (even if it was from Walmart), that you could "Game", even if you had to turn down settings a little bit.

Now you need to invest in a 2560x1440 @ 144 IPS G-Sync monitor for $700, get dual 1080 SLI cards for $1400, get a Broadwell-E for $1700, etc.

Sure, maybe there are those few people out there that can afford that kind of stuff with their disposable income (and I don't hold that against them, more power to you).

But when a certain subset of those people start to spew on forums that other, less-hardware-intensive PC Gamers, "aren't true PC gamers... PC Master Race!!!", I have a problem with that.

I mean, I think I've read that on the Steam survey, most gamers have 1080P @ 60 monitors, and GTX970 or lower video cards.

What do you think? Is PC Gaming only a sport for the elite now? Should retail prices of components be going up, just because of this subset of the population that can "afford the best"? Or should PC Gaming remain affordable and accessible to all that own a recent PC?

 

[Majcric]

Not really, I hate that prices have risen as much as the next guy but then again its hard to think of anything that hasn't went up in price.

PC parts are cheap in comparison to other hobbies. And there is still a wide range of parts to choose from at various price points. Sometimes forums can be very persuasive in causing one to spend more than necessary. AVS forum almost convinced me to spend $5000 on TV.

 

[Zodiark1593]

PC gaming is only as much of a money drain as you choose. Versatility and ability to scale is the beauty of the platform. For the most part (with a couple exceptions), it's only AAA games that want you to have the best-of-the-best PC setup. Of course, no one is holding you at gunpoint to have all settings maxed out.

Or you can choose to look elsewhere than AAA titles. The games I have the most hours in Steam will run happily on a potato.

 

[Ackmed]

OP, your join date doesn't suggest that you're new but you sure are acting like it? It is the same as it has been for decades. Claiming that someone needs a $700 monitor, SLI 1080's, etc, is lunacy. You have always been able to buy bang for buck parts and play virtually any game out there. The more you spend, the more you get back. Smoother frames, better quality graphics, faster load times, etc. As the poster above me stated, its your choice. I can't even take what you said seriously.

 

[Yakk]

Don't confuse marketing of expensive "gamer" grade products with traditional PC gaming for which the cost of ownership has not really changed IMO.

 

[jlee]

I'm sure there are people on the other side of the spectrum who think their 2005 gaming PC should be able to play new stuff too. Modern 'good enough' hardware is unbelievably cheap.

 

[GusSmed]

Yeah, nothing's changed in regard to actual performance hardware like graphics cards. So long as we've had discrete graphics cards (as opposed to, say, machines like the Commodore 64 or the Atari 800 where the graphics were on the motherboard), there's been a range of prices from budget to bleeding edge.

"Mid priced" cards have always been all you've needed, because game developers almost all targeted what they thought the audience already owned, in order to maximize sales. That was true then and it's true now.

As far as CPUs go, it's been a long time since games have been anything like CPU limited. A 5-6 year old CPU will run almost any game.

There have always been people who will shell out top dollar for the absolute best, but it's never been necessary. That you think there's a trend toward this now is entirely in your imagination.

 

[DooKey]

OP, your join date doesn't suggest that you're new but you sure are acting like it? It is the same as it has been for decades. Claiming that someone needs a $700 monitor, SLI 1080's, etc, is lunacy. You have always been able to buy bang for buck parts and play virtually any game out there. The more you spend, the more you get back. Smoother frames, better quality graphics, faster load times, etc. As the poster above me stated, its your choice. I can't even take what you said seriously.

I agree. OP is a budget gamer and somehow thinks the market should cater to him. PC gamers are of every budget range, but like you said the more you spend the more you get. Definitely do not take the OP seriously.

 

[JeffMD]

Buy smart. If you are still running around with a dual core, your pc is too old and/or under powered. As far as video cards go, if you want things to last then buy the equivalent of the current console generation. Most games today target that visual quality point. I held onto my 460gtx for quite some time because it ran games the same or better than consoles.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Don't confuse marketing of expensive "gamer" grade products

I guess, that's sort of what I'm commenting on. I've read, that during the California Gold Rush in the 1800s, it wasn't the miners that made the most money, but the people setting up shop in the mining towns selling things to the miners. I guess that's kind of how I see the current state of PC Gaming, now that Intel has kind of recognized a "PC Gaming Gold Rush", companies are setting up shop to sell overpriced "Gamer" gear.

with traditional PC gaming for which the cost of ownership has not really changed IMO.

I guess so, but then there's the games out there that won't even operate with a dual-core CPU, no matter how fast it is.

Likewise, games that require a minimum of VRAM to play.

PC Gaming seems to be becoming a "pay to play" sport. (Edit: I think I meant to say "pay to win", instead. Like those MMOs, that you have to pay real $$$ to get the best items.)

 

[DaveSimmons]

Beats headphones. Bose. Monster Cable. $40 USB printer cables at Best Buy.

People will pay for image, so companies will charge silly prices for second-rate gear with a fancy brand.

People will pay if they lack the knowledge to find the better gear at better prices, so companies will prey on their ignorance.

The other point you raised was snobbery. Someone who just spent $5,000 on a Falcon Northwest SLI monster wants something to let them feel good about their purchase, so they want games that refuse to run on lesser systems owned by "the poors." That's just gamers being insecure jerks and isn't the fault of the companies.

Lastly, a few developers are idiots who add requirements enforcement to their game that don't make sense. I remember long ago when games would drop down to 640x480 software rendering because they did not recognize your new video card because it was a newer generation.

 

[Sheep221]

Master race is more of subculture of some sort rather than anything related to technology or even technological superiority. And as with most subcultures they are not particularly good looking or favored outside of the sub's members. Yet its members will always remind you that if you do not belong in, you are bad, but you won't be let in unless you fill some conditions/requirements.
So if you don't want to belong anywhere in these terms, you either go neutral or eclectic.
I played games actively for 10 years and 99% of that time I played on 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolution and I was really a good player and I enjoyed both online and single player games. Master race is something like Lamborghini club in computer sense. Apart from a laser mouse I never owned anything that is labeled gaming hardware, my keyboard is $15, the mouse was $60, monitor was $160 after rebate and my motherboard does not even have 2 PCIe slots for 2 video cards. Oh I forgot to mention my 12 year old case for office computers still hosts my system. It doesn't mean you must own a ferrari in order to drive or be good driver. In fact I don't even like the hardware master racers usually buy, the RAM has ugly tall heatsinks the cases are also ugly and way bigger than desktop PC needs to be, overclocking is something more of hassle than useful these days, and it tops with guys skipping the case entirely and installing components right into their glass table/desk - I really hope that this ugly habit that plagues forums and youtube channels for so long will be gone someday.

That's my 2 cents regarding the master race.

 

[jlee]

(Edit: I think I meant to say "pay to win", instead. Like those MMOs, that you have to pay real $$$ to get the best items.)

Uhh, welcome to life.

 

[MongGrel]

I thought it had been "popular" for decades now.

Easy answer is turn some of your in game graphics down if you want to play and not spurge on the bells and whistles OP.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

OP, your join date doesn't suggest that you're new but you sure are acting like it? It is the same as it has been for decades. Claiming that someone needs a $700 monitor, SLI 1080's, etc, is lunacy. You have always been able to buy bang for buck parts and play virtually any game out there. The more you spend, the more you get back. Smoother frames, better quality graphics, faster load times, etc. As the poster above me stated, its your choice. I can't even take what you said seriously.

My Q9650 & 23" Acer 1680x1050 monitor agree

 

[Yakk]

I guess, that's sort of what I'm commenting on. I've read, that during the California Gold Rush in the 1800s, it wasn't the miners that made the most money, but the people setting up shop in the mining towns selling things to the miners. I guess that's kind of how I see the current state of PC Gaming, now that Intel has kind of recognized a "PC Gaming Gold Rush", companies are setting up shop to sell overpriced "Gamer" gear.



I guess so, but then there's the games out there that won't even operate with a dual-core CPU, no matter how fast it is.

Likewise, games that require a minimum of VRAM to play.

PC Gaming seems to be becoming a "pay to play" sport. (Edit: I think I meant to say "pay to win", instead. Like those MMOs, that you have to pay real $$$ to get the best items.)

Well, you have to understand how the companies involved make money.

Technology performance constantly increases, there is R&D to pay for which never stops. Dual cores were good in their time, but now even basic smartphones use quad cores. Memory requirements also slowly increase over time as the code libraries (amongst other things) evolve and grow.

In the consoles, there is fixed performance hardware game developers have to use. So they do the best they can, with the hardware they have. Everyone is on equal footing.

In PC gaming, these same (or similar) games have a huge variance of hardware to account for. When you see a game that is sponsored by a company, in general the arbitrary maximum (great post elsewhere in these forums) is usually set at the highest edge, or even beyond the most expensive hardware you can buy. This is not an accident, this is marketing by the hardware vendor(s) who sponsored the game. This usually will not impact gameplay though, just a bit of bling eye candy so I would not call it pay to win though. Sleazy marketing perhaps, but not really P2W.

 

[Harrod]

I'd say no, even if you were to build a system that had a graphics quality of a Xbox one, or ps4, you'd still be close to those systems in price probably within $100 of the systems themselves.

I think the real question that I ask myself is why hasn't one of those console company's started selling a cheap printer, mouse and keyboard to market to those people who can't afford to have both a console and a pc.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'd say no, even if you were to build a system that had a graphics quality of a Xbox one, or ps4, you'd still be close to those systems in price probably within $100 of the systems themselves.

I think the real question that I ask myself is why hasn't one of those console company's started selling a cheap printer, mouse and keyboard to market to those people who can't afford to have both a console and a pc.

I'd guess its too low end to be worth the risk

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think the real question that I ask myself is why hasn't one of those console company's started selling a cheap printer, mouse and keyboard to market to those people who can't afford to have both a console and a pc.

Commodore 64 / Amiga? ColecoVision / Adam? Kind of like that?

TBH, it would only require some software, to be able to plug in a USB printer into a PS4 or XBO.

 

[TidusZ]

Absolutely not.

I've been a pc gamer since around 1995 and the price for the hardware to play all the games is probably bout 20% of what it was in the 90s. Back then you'd have to buy a $2000 cpu each year to keep up with the games, and sometimes drop $200-$300 for upgrades (a few mb of ram) just for a specific game (under a killing moon, total annihilation).

Nowadays, my PC is 4 years old (except the video card which is about 2 years old) and runs everything beautifully at 1600p on my 9 year old 30 inch monitor. Overwatch runs at 70 fps with high settings without even fully utilizing the videocard.

In fact, for the first 5-6 years of my pc gaming career most the games I played ran at under 20 fps (counterstrike 5-20 fps, 20 after upgrading videocard, 5 before, black and white around 5-10 fps, etc) and were borderline unplayable. I don't remember the last time that frames per second was a limiting factor in me enjoying a game...

I used to overclock my PC's hard because after a few years they would be useless, but now I view a PC as a 5-10 year investment and I don't overclock that hard anymore. The $$ savings are significant compared to 10, 15, 20 years ago. Some people will waste their money on l337 gam3rgearz like dropping 1000 bucks on an ASUS TN panel, or a sucker's edition 1080, but if you just want to play all the games at 60 fps it's cheaper than ever to do that.

Devil's advocate though, I will admit that video card prices have gone full retard in recent years, a direct result of Nvidia's greed IMO. However, if you can ignore the hype and don't care about topping the bar graphs, you can still play all the games for cheap.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I have no idea what he's trying to say here. PC gaming is cheaper than it has ever been, hardware wise, game cost wise. Sure there are PTW games, but I"ve never played one. There is zero need to, there are so many more options now than there were 20 or even 10 years ago.

I won't say this is 'the golden age' of gaming, but it certainly is the cheapest to get into it and plenty of good, quality cheap games out there. My current system is going on 4 years old and the only thing I've upgraded in that time is a video card and a monitor (btw, 1440p 120hz and didn't pay anywhere near $700 for it so not sure what you are looking at).

 

[VirtualLarry]

However, if you can ignore the hype and don't care about topping the bar graphs, you can still play all the games for cheap.

I guess, some of the motivation behind my post was, I'm currently at a crossroads. I'm debating selling off my current "gaming gear" (well, my pseudo-gaming PCs, pseudo because they only currently have dual-cores, which according to the PC Master Race'rs, "aren't true gaming PCs"), or upgrading them (in the coming months, I need to start paying off my debts) to "true gaming PCs".

I was interested in the RX 480 cards, maybe the 8GB GDDR5 VRAM variety, if they're not too expensive.

I currently have 7950 cards in my gaming rigs, along with G4400 SKL Pentium dual-cores, and 2x4GB DDR4-2400, and 128GB SM951 M.2 PCI-E AHCI SSDs. $100 TN 1080P HDTV screens as monitors, using HDMI input. (They do support 4:4:4, and look pretty decent as monitors.)

Yeah, barely a "gaming rig". Plays Skyrim fine. Then again, I've played Skyrim at 1080P low, on my i3-6100's iGPU. Wasn't horrible.

I recently bought some Gigabyte Brix J1900 Bay Trail-D Atom desktop quad-core boxes, with SATAII SSDs, and have been using them for my daily-driver Nef boxes. They're fine for that. I like the low power-consumption.

So I was thinking of selling off my ATX boxes, if I decide not to do too much distributed computing or gaming in the near future.

Or I could look into some RX 480 cards, and some 6700K CPUs at Microcenter. (~$310 at last check, I think)

 

[ritditditdidoo]

You can be a cheap PC gamer, I was one. When everyone was using 1920x1080 monitors or tv's, I had a 1680x1050 which was a really good screen. But the smaller size meant that I only needed a cheap ish 1gb graphics card, and even the latest games ran great like that. I also still have a 2500k cpu which I bought many years ago but still does great because of its huge overclocking ability.

I upgraded most of this stuff recently because I wanted to, but I didn't need to. I could still be playing Fallout 4 and stuff on my 1680 screen with my HD5870 cheap graphics card. Also if you lower the settings in games you can go even cheaper. I bet with low settings a lot of games would work on very low spec gear. I love gaming with all the settings on full but it isn't essential.

I think overall it is a lot cheaper than some hobbies. It can be expensive if you want top end gear, but the same is true of most hobbies. The only thing that bugs me is that to get the best out of most modern games, you really need a greater than average graphics card, and they are expensive. But again, it is optional. Also as others said, buying games is really cheap now. It is expensive if you buy the latest games as soon as they release, but wait a while and everything becomes cheap, and wait even longer and you can buy 20 games on Steam sales for the price of one console game.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

PC Gamer master race has been summoned

 

[jlee]

You can be a cheap PC gamer, I was one. When everyone was using 1920x1080 monitors or tv's, I had a 1680x1050 which was a really good screen. But the smaller size meant that I only needed a cheap ish 1gb graphics card, and even the latest games ran great like that. I also still have a 2500k cpu which I bought many years ago but still does great because of its huge overclocking ability.

I upgraded most of this stuff recently because I wanted to, but I didn't need to. I could still be playing Fallout 4 and stuff on my 1680 screen with my HD5870 cheap graphics card. Also if you lower the settings in games you can go even cheaper. I bet with low settings a lot of games would work on very low spec gear. I love gaming with all the settings on full but it isn't essential.

I think overall it is a lot cheaper than some hobbies. It can be expensive if you want top end gear, but the same is true of most hobbies. The only thing that bugs me is that to get the best out of most modern games, you really need a greater than average graphics card, and they are expensive. But again, it is optional. Also as others said, buying games is really cheap now. It is expensive if you buy the latest games as soon as they release, but wait a while and everything becomes cheap, and wait even longer and you can buy 20 games on Steam sales for the price of one console game.

Would you rather us remain in the era of Half-Life 2 graphics so ancient machines can play everything at max settings? There's a solution for that...it's called "play older games."

I run Doom in 1080P with everything maxed out on a single 970 and it's smooth as glass.