[HK786]

Why is it that an xbox or ps3 from 2006 can run say elder scrolls skyim (a graphically intensive game) at a very smooth frame rate even though they cost £200 but even a £500 pc from 2012 would have trouble running it. Why dont they just make a pc with the same specs as a ps3 so it will be cheap and be able to run games well. I dont get it??? explain please. I know that PC have better graphics but still. Just take Minecraft for xbox. The xbox is running MC at like far render smoothly but my £600 laptop can only run it on short.

[CurlyBen]

Console prices are subsidised, and the manufacturers make the money back by charging a license fee to the games manufacturers. That's why console games are more expensive than PC games.

[WilliamG]

(Original post by HK786)
Just take Minecraft for xbox. The xbox is running MC at like far render smoothly but my £600 laptop can only run it on short.

You got ripped off there if you can't run minecraft

[mcs31]

My laptop was under £500 and plays Skyrim perfectly well...

[Bhumbauze]

Well, err, for a start... a £500 PC in 2012 will run Skyrim much more smoothly, at a higher screen res, on higher settings than either console - unless you've been ripped off. In fact, you could build a £300 PC that would run it better.

However, that's unsuprising as the consoles are getting a little dated, sooo, if we rewind a couple of years, you're right; the PS3 when it was selling for around £300, would have been able to compete in gaming terms with a gaming PC rig costing £800+.

Why? Couple of reasons really... for one, the console manufacturing process involves the mass manufacture of exactly the same components. And in any manufacturing process... the more you make, the more economical it is per unit. Whereas with a PC, most of the time, you'll be paying the individual component costs yourself. Also, IIRC, Sony / Microsoft don't make much in terms of per-unit profit early in the console's life cycles. They're more focussed on "getting them out there", and making profits on software, than turning a huge profit on the item itself. In the case of PC components, the companies aren't generally making software profits; they have to make their profit on the component sale itself. They also tend to use SOME fairly cheap components, for certain things, cutting costs again.

So, that's PART of why they're cheaper.

However - they do also run games better than a "like for like" PC with components of comparible speeds, for a couple of reasons. Basically... "a PC with the same specs as a PS3" won't run games like a PS3. For one, a PC is running an OS like Windows, and multiple other processes, in the background at the same time as it's running a game... all competing for system resources. Mainly, though, it's down to optimisation... all PS3's are basically identical, so the games can be designed to use every last bit of processing / graphical potential, and it'll run the same on every PS3. PC's use any number of different combinations of components, by any number of different manufacturers, and so the games have to be designed to cater to an infinitely wide variety of hardware configurations.


Either way, it tends to only last a couple of years. My PC will play ANY multiplat game at almost double the screen res of the consoles (I run 1920*1200, consoles are mostly 720p), at a better framerate, with higher texture settings, better lighting... etc. etc... and most components in my PC are almost 5 years old.


Oh and the reason your laptop won't play games well, is because most laptops are not designed for gaming; i.e. it'll have crappy on-board graphics.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by HK786)
Why is it that an xbox or ps3 from 2006 can run say elder scrolls skyim (a graphically intensive game) at a very smooth frame rate even though they cost £200 but even a £500 pc from 2012 would have trouble running it. Why dont they just make a pc with the same specs as a ps3 so it will be cheap and be able to run games well. I dont get it??? explain please. I know that PC have better graphics but still. Just take Minecraft for xbox. The xbox is running MC at like far render smoothly but my £600 laptop can only run it on short.

Because consoles are supposed to be for gaming...............but said that, buying a PC from the likes of Dell, Hp, etc isn't good they don't source the best parts and don't really create that great range of supposed "gaming" pc's. Building one under £500 can easily get you a lot in fact and in comparison PC games have much better frame rates, graphic detail and game content over all. Laptops are much harder to be cheap, portable and good at gaming.................but you can still get something very good, just don't go to the high street shops and buy on-line.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by HK786)
Why is it that an xbox or ps3 from 2006 can run say elder scrolls skyim (a graphically intensive game) at a very smooth frame rate even though they cost £200 but even a £500 pc from 2012 would have trouble running it. Why dont they just make a pc with the same specs as a ps3 so it will be cheap and be able to run games well. I dont get it??? explain please. I know that PC have better graphics but still. Just take Minecraft for xbox. The xbox is running MC at like far render smoothly but my £600 laptop can only run it on short.

1. Games for Xbox/PS3 etc. are optimised well for those consoles. Because PCs come in so many varieties - the games can't be optimised as well.
2. Minecraft on Xbox is a very minimalist version of Minecraft, as well as the graphics being worse. They also decrease things like render distance so you can only see clearly like 30-50m ahead.
3. If by '£500 PC' you mean '£500 laptop' that's also due to the fact you spend a big premium for them getting everything into a small case - and including a screen there too. My friend built a computer for less than £300 and bought a (okay it's no 1080p but it's alright) monitor for £10 second hand - he plays skyrim on high+ settings at 720p which looks far better than the console versions.

[VampiricJaws]

Games for consoles are made for the consoles, therefore the graphics are optimized for the graphics processors fit in the consoles, where as there are so many graphics cards for PC, that there is no way developers could optimize their games for all of these cards. On the other hand, if you buy a high-end PC, games will look much much better than they would on a console.

[kopite493]

(Original post by Junaid96)
The thing with the Xbox/PS3 is that they only come in 2-3 models. If Dell ONLY produces the Inspiron 15, with only the HP G61 as competition, they would both able to sell their products for ridiculously cheap prices.


I doubt it plays it as well as an Xbox, but hey

i agree if he knows what hes doing then it probably runs it better

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by hassi94)
My friend built a computer for less than £300 and bought a (okay it's no 1080p but it's alright) monitor for £10 second hand - he plays skyrim on high+ settings at 720p which looks far better than the console versions.

But he couldn't have done that for the price of an Xbox 360 when the Xbox came out - how many 7 year old PCs with 512mb of RAM could compete with an Xbox?

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
But he couldn't have done that for the price of an Xbox 360 when the Xbox came out - how many 7 year old PCs with 512mb of RAM could compete with an Xbox?

I agree - I was arguing with this part of the post: "even a £500 pc from 2012 would have trouble running it"

Ooh but just to add something: I always think the cost of gaming on a PC should be calculated by the difference in price from a normal PC that you'd buy if you didn't want to game, and one that is capable of gaming. It's not fair for someone to say they need to spend £600 on a gaming PC when in reality they'd have spent £300+ for a regular PC anyway.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by hassi94)
I agree - I was arguing with this part of the post: "even a £500 pc from 2012 would have trouble running it"

Ooh but just to add something: I always think the cost of gaming on a PC should be calculated by the difference in price from a normal PC that you'd buy if you didn't want to game, and one that is capable of gaming. It's not fair for someone to say they need to spend £600 on a gaming PC when in reality they'd have spent £300+ for a regular PC anyway.

Fair point, but then you could also argue that you should factor in the cost of upgrades to the PC as well - an Xbox 360 (provided it doesn't break!) will last 7/8 years from release with no upgrades and still able to play the latest games. I don't game on my PC (or much at all, but it's normally on my Xbox if I do) but I would guess you'd need to spend £2-300 every couple of years on a gaming PC to keep it up to date?
(I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, but games consoles offer a lot of hardware for the money, at least at release)

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
Fair point, but then you could also argue that you should factor in the cost of upgrades to the PC as well - an Xbox 360 (provided it doesn't break!) will last 7/8 years from release with no upgrades and still able to play the latest games. I don't game on my PC (or much at all, but it's normally on my Xbox if I do) but I would guess you'd need to spend £2-300 every couple of years on a gaming PC to keep it up to date?
(I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, but games consoles offer a lot of hardware for the money, at least at release)

I see what you mean, but spending £300 every 4-5 years would probably keep it just as capable as consoles (i.e. playing games on low settings nearing the end of its life). But yes definitely I agree that hardware-wise you do get better value for money from consoles - I have and play on an Xbox (sometimes) too

Another thing is that my Steam Library is valued at £1000 ish - and that's at today's prices (i.e. taking into account price drops since release), yet I've only ever spent about £250 on Steam, not to mention these games were bought over the past 2 years - not just right now so really the value should be even greater.

[Bhumbauze]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
Fair point, but then you could also argue that you should factor in the cost of upgrades to the PC as well - an Xbox 360 (provided it doesn't break!) will last 7/8 years from release with no upgrades and still able to play the latest games. I don't game on my PC (or much at all, but it's normally on my Xbox if I do) but I would guess you'd need to spend £2-300 every couple of years on a gaming PC to keep it up to date?
(I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, but games consoles offer a lot of hardware for the money, at least at release)

Not really - but that's mainly because of the "console cap" - i.e. a lot of games are multiplatform and therefore don't utilise the latest PC tech fully.

I game on a 5+ year old PC and have only upgraded the graphics card (last October to a 560gtx-ti, cost £180) in that time. It plays Skyrim, Arkham City, Max Payne 3, etc. all on high at 1920*1200, higher res than a console even at 1080p (and most console games run at 720p) and higher graphics settings generally.

On the other hand, "PC games" absolutely kill the dated processor - Witcher 2 (PC exclusive before it was stripped down for console) slows it to a crawl at times, and it straight up can't handle Civ 5.

So yeah... for the mostpart, if you wait say 2 years after each console generation is released then build a decent-spec PC for say around £500, you should only need minor upgrades for the mostpart and maybe a graphics card upgrade after 5 years or so.

Obviously more expensive than a console, BUT, I think it depends on how many games you're going to be buying. Console software is considerably more expensive - so if you're buying a lot of games over the lifespan of the system, it can all add up. This will be even more true "next gen" - since they're seriously cracking down on the second hand games market.