XBox 360 or Gaming PC - which is a better investment?

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2007-06-16 05:06am

With World in Conflict, C&C3, Fallout 3 and GTAIV all getting an Xbox release alongside the PC versions, I'm begining to consider that maybe an Xbox360 will suit my gaming needs more appropriately then yet another tricked out gaming PC. (currently I have an Athlon X2 5200+ with an X1950Pro)

There are PC-only games that I would want to play (Civ 4 and Hellgate come to mind) but with all of games above also PC games that "I want to play", it seems a bit pointless to keep on throwing money at the computer when it's already too powerful for anything else I would possibly use it for except gaming, where it is "only" upper-midrange at best.

So, do you guys think is more worth my disposable income come christmas: a new GPU, say along the lines of SLI-ed 8800GTS, or an Xbox360?

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-06-16 05:09am

*snort* every single one of those games would suck on a 360. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for gamepads- they're a necessary evil, that's all. If the game's on a console and a PC, it will always be better on a PC, period.

(especially WiC and C&C 3- good luck playing them with a gamepad and not feeling retarded).

But, if you want to save money, then obviously the XBox 360 is the proper choice, even with the substandard controller.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-06-16 05:11am

I see nothing about WiC getting an Xbox360 release. You may be confused with the fact that it comes under the Gaming For Windows brand, which means it's compatible with the xbox360 controller.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-06-16 05:26am

Ace Pace wrote:I see nothing about WiC getting an Xbox360 release. You may be confused with the fact that it comes under the Gaming For Windows brand, which means it's compatible with the xbox360 controller.

Ahem.

And the press release.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2007-06-16 05:29am

Actually, also from gamespot, yes it is going to come to the 360

@ Vympel : I appreciate what you mean, I am...well, was, pretty much always on the PC side of the PC versus Console debate.

I think something just died inside me when I realised I was spending more time wondering "Can I run this without compromising performance settings with my current specs?" than enjoying looking forward to the new games.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-06-16 05:31am

My bad, shoot me.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-06-16 05:47am

I'm sorry, but I have no respect for gamepads- they're a necessary evil, that's all.

For certain genres. RTS'ing with a gamepad is a pain, but I have yet to see a platformer or flight combat game work properly with mouse controls. And digital movement is sooo 1992.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-06-16 07:01am

Flight simulators are meant to be played with joysticks, not gamepads.

Which is why I have a cheapy Logitech Attack 3 for the run of the mill stuff and a Saitek X45 HOTAS setup for the more serious shit.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » 2007-06-16 07:10am

but we have X45 for 360 too

i'm so getting this.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-06-16 07:51am

Bounty wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have no respect for gamepads- they're a necessary evil, that's all.
For certain genres. RTS'ing with a gamepad is a pain, but I have yet to see a platformer or flight combat game work properly with mouse controls. And digital movement is sooo 1992.

Flight combat games need to be played with a full-sized joystick, which are much easier to find for PC than for console systems. Playing those types of games with a thumbstick is even worse than using a mouse.

You're right about the platformers, though. It shouldn't make a difference, because there are plenty of gamepads for the PC with the same layout as for the consoles, but for whatever reason there's not a single PC port of any console game that's able to properly use a gamepad's thumbsticks. In the console versions, you can push the stick in any direction and your character will go in that direction, but on the PC it just acts as another eight-way d-pad except that you can vary how far you push the stick.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-06-16 07:53am

Indeed, the windows drivers for MS's own 360 controllers are a complete waste of time. Pretty ironic, really.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-06-16 08:41am

I feel WiC would be horrible on 360, that camera is absolutely awful, right now the dirt kicked up from Heavy Arty strikes look like clay and I can garuntee you that you're missing >75% of the fun if you don't have Xbox Live.

As for GTAIV, I've never liked playing GTA games on a PC, despite the mods.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-06-16 09:38am

To call either an XBox 360 or a gaming PC an "investment" is a rather serious perversion of the word "investment". Neither of them are a good "investment". The question is: which one would give you more enjoyment for the next couple of years. If you want a good investment, consider buying shares in a major bank.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2007-06-16 10:09am

I think I'll go invest in some melting ice cubes.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2007-06-16 11:03am

My computer is pretty similar to yours (a bit worse, I have only a single core) yet I've so far not encountered a game that I couldn't run at a high detail level. Of course, it's not unlikely at all that I've neglected to try some demanding game (in which case please let me know what it would be). Regardless, if you're talking about what would be best bang for buck, I think you'd be best off with an Xbox in addtion to your current PC, which would allow you a much wider selection of games.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-06-16 11:08am

The investment thing is kind of annoying. I remember watching television and hearing someone trying to pass off 500 dollar jeans as an investment. That kind of thing should be illegal.

I don't see a point in a better graphics card if you've already got a good enough one. Wow, you can have a little more anti-aliasing and play a game at max settings. But with a 360, you have friends over, you have a brand new platform -- it's like getting extra capability entirely compared to a miniscule improvement. Guess what I'd pick. But that's just me.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2007-06-16 11:53am

On a cost basis, it's difficult to argue against a console, but I always find myself hitting the brick wall that most of the games I want to play are on PC. The only 360 games that I have anything approaching a burning desire for are Forza 2 and Mass Effect, and 2 games aren't going to make me shell out $400.

That said, I don't upgrade until what I've got is unacceptable. After many upgrades, I've found that there just isn't that much difference between running a game at medium-low settings and high settings. When I went from a 386 to a Pentium 60, that was truly a 'Wow' upgrade. Same when I went from a Pentium 60 to a PII 450, but many of the upgrades I've done since then haven't been 'Wow' at all, even when I was jumping ahead several generations. I went from a GeForce 3 to a Radeon 9800 Pro, and while I appreciated the fact that the newest games at the time would not have run on the GF3, games like Half Life 2 and Doom 3 didn't suddenly become significantly better experiences. It's rather telling that the first thing that people who upgrade to the latest and greatest every 12 months do is run to some canned benchmark to justify their spending disorder, because actual gameplay improvement sure as hell won't justify it.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2007-06-16 12:32pm

I was using a Geforce4Ti for years after it was obsolete, until I got this particular setup, and before that I had a K6-2 400 with SiS integrated graphics (now, THAT was hell.), so I know what it's like to be behind the curve, and after reading what author_tuxedo had to say I feel that I am forced to agree...I can't disagree without sounding like someone too obsessed with benchmarks and keeping up with the joneses.

@Seggybop - admittedly the games that made my computer cry were known system hogs - oblivion, neverwinter nights 2, GRAW. And yes, they were playable, just not as silky smooth as I would have liked. What does that bode for the future games? Medium settings, I would presume.

Reflecting on this, it's true that I don't strictly speaking "need" to play at the highest settings and silky smooth framerates, and on medium-low my system will be keeping pace way into 2009 or even 2010 or so, and I was a little caught up in looking at the latest benches for gaming PC's and seeing how they stack up and feeling that it would be nicer to just get a console, and only need to think about upgrading when the next gen comes out, assured that all games for the platform will work without further hassle, especially if a majority of the games I'm looking for on the PC are multi-platform with the XBox.

The bit about "investment" I have to concede too.