Do PC gamers actually enjoy having to purchase a new video card every year?

Unless they got money to burn, normal people don't buy a new card every year.

Generally speaking, if a video card is purchased within a year from release date, it should be good for another 2 to 3 years. This is not so different from seeing a new gaming system every 2-3 years. However, video cards does have the added hassel of installations, updating drivers, etc.; conversely consoles are pretty much ready to go once it's plugged in.

PAL

Video game systems up to this point have had a 5 year life span.

SNES: 1991 N64: 1996 Gamecube: 2001

Playstation 1995: PS2: 2000

There's been some talk of MS coming out with the X-box 2 at the same time or before the PS3 which could break this trend. The PS3 will likely come out in 2005, five years after the PS2. But since the X-box came out in 2001, that would cut it's life span to 4 years or less.

Which would suck. I won't upgrade any sooner than 5 years.

Especially given the state of graphics now. It'll be a long time before we get an advance like going from 2D to 3D and IMO 3D graphics look fine the way they are. I don't care about more polygons, higher resolution, or any of that jazz as it doesn't affect gameplay and gameplay is all I care about.

(MOD NOTE: I split this post off from another thread -Blade)

joshhinkle youre the first one to critisize a :crap:
Do you know one when you see one?

The first poster was talking about a new card, and then expressed his disappointment as he had just bought a card.

Which is why I made the original post. I just don't get why PC gamers put up with this crap.

As for the second post, I was correcting false information. Companies put out new consoles every 5 years, not every 2-3.

Plus you have to upgrade your video card more than every 2-3 years if you want to be able to play the new games at the best settings over that span.

Then start a thread on that. This thread is debating the merits of ATI vs Nvidia. You want to bash PC gamers start a thread for it.

Whatever.

It is really, really, really not essential for a PC gamer to by a new video card each year. I just recently replaced my original GeForce 1 that I bought 3 years ago (for $300) with an ATI 8500LE (for $100). To be fair, I'm quite certain that I could have lived with the Geforce for a while longer, the ATI 8500LE was just too good of a deal to pass up.

I don't want to turn this thread into a console / PC war (as I play both equally), but each platform as its pros and cons.

To appease joltaddict....Constantly upgrading PC video cards sucks!!
 

Happy now.

Any way in this thread a member expressed dissapointment at the announcement of a more powerful video card when he/she had just purchased a new card recently.

My question, is why have PC gamers put up with this crap for years?

Whats the fun in having to buy a new card every 2-3 years to even play the newest games and much more often than that if you want to play the newest games in the optimal settings?

Why haven't people complained and boycotted new cards in an effort to get companies to make there products functional longer like consoles which have historically had a 5 year life span?

I know the benefit is getting better graphics sooner, but is that really worth the cost and hassle?

Especially give the state of graphics today. It will be a long time before we get as big a jump as going from 2D to 3D. And todays 3D graphics are pretty damn good. The only improvements will be things like higher polygon counts and resolution, which IMO doesn't improve gameplay at all. And gameplay is hopefully the reason everyone plays games.

So what's the point?

:rofl:

I used to by the newest and greatest video cards when they came out. Now, it just doesn't seem cost effective anymore. If a PC gamer waits every two to three years to buy a new video card then they can normally get a fairly nice one at around $150, while the latest and greatest seems to cost around $300 - $400.

Now I get excited when a new video card is released because that usually means that all the past models get pushed down in price. I feel that the costs associated with PC gaming and console gaming over the years pretty much evens out.

Because as a PC gamer, I get to play superior games than console gamers are stuck with and any card I buy will last me for as long as I want it to... I'm still using a TNT and a Voodoo2 in another machine and it runs most games just fine - newer games require newer hardware because the graphics are so much better. PS2 games coming out now don't look any better than PS2 games that came out a few years ago... and they won't look better in the future. There may be the odd title that manages to look better - like Virtua Fighter 4 or whatever, but I don't think it looks all that great really. I've owned a TNT, TNT2, Voodoo, Voodoo2, Voodoo3, Geforce 2, Geforce 3, Geforce 4, Radeon 7500, and a few Matrox cards. I'm a tinkerer and I like to upgrade hardware and see performance increases and such. Consoles are good for mindless entertainment while loafing on the couch alone or with friends... PCs are better for games that are more immersive and mature and good looking and which allow you to play against hundreds of other gamers (and they don't even have to stink up your living room). :p How's that for starting a PC/Console war? :)

Graphics aren't important to me. The consoles all look fine. 3D graphics are more or less maxed for me as I prefer games that don't look photo realistic.

Online gaming sucks.

How's that. :D

Not if you include the price of the PC.

http://www.pcgameplay.co.uk/Specials...rio%20Bros.jpg http://www.ludus.it/anteprima/doom4016101805101/3.jpg

Yeah you're right... -rolleyes- no comparison.

I try and get a kickass computer by the time the computers have passed the current console group. Right now it's pretty close. Once Doom 3 comes out I may get a computer suited to run it.

I had a P3 700mhz, 32mb ATi card, 384mb RAM computer that i bought 2 years ago, played Half-Life, Counter-strike great.

I just recently purchased a spanking new computer Athlon 1800XP, 512DDR ram, 128mb Geforce3 Ti200, dvd, 40gb hd for around $700. Runs everything I throw at it very well...Graphics..awesome for WC3 and Wolfenstein the 2 games i play right now.

I already have a real nice 19" Mitsubishi DiamondTron 900u flat crt that i purchased 3 years ago for $600.

SO now in the future I just plan to buy a new video card after a couple of generations have passed. I went with a Geforce3 right now instead of a Geforce4 Ti4400 or even ti4200 because I plan to wait until say Doom3 come out and get the best video i can for around $200. I'll never buy top of the line. its not like a car.

In the world of computers, new & better technology will replace current ones very fast and it will be cheaper as well. I bought a pci Voodoo2 5 years ago and that blew me away. My cousin purchased a Yamaha 4x cd burner 6 years ago for something like $800 and that blew me away. JUST LAST YEAR I purchased a Panasonic Dvd player and in one year for less I could buy a Panasoinic 5disc Dvd changer! So basically, if you want it now, pay the price. if you can wait then wait.

The reasons for the constant upgrading of video cards is purely economic. For a company like NVIDIA, they have to be constantly improving or fall behind and lose the chip race. Computer makers ship machines twice a year (April & August). That means NVIDIA has to have a new chip set ready each February and June (to ship with those machines). They have their production schedule planned out within a day or two, 18 months in advance.

Why do all this? Because if they don't, then they're not keeping up with the computer manufacturers (or Moore's Law for that matter). PC users are always looking for new faster and better, whether its for games, graphic arts, or business apps. The video card people have to be on top of thir game and ahead of the pack if they want to be industry leaders (which every business does).

That being said, I also feel that as a PC user you don't have to always be upgrading. My video card is 2 years old and GTA III is the first game I where I needed to turn down the settings. If you buy the top card initially, then you'll get a longer life out of it. I don't plan on betting a new card for awhile.

Upgrading a video card is not too far different from buying a new system everytime Sony, Nintendo or MS releases one. If a PC gamer wants to be cutting edge that badly then they suck it up and do what it takes, just like a console gamer buys a new console or add-on hardware (ie PS2 modem, hard drive etc). Granted the consoles last a bit longer, but depending on what video card you get, the cost can be much less.

No Im pretty much in agreement with Josh. PC gaming is much more expensive than console gaming. But so what? So some people think Im retarded for buying new vid cards twice a year. Other people think Im retarded for camping for a Gamecube. Its my money and its my hobby. F*** what you think.

Pioneer A03 DVD-Burner $500

Geforce4 Ti4600 $350

to be the first one on your block with the latest gear or the best gear of all your friends....PRICELESS

In your defense, that's only a couple of the many reasons we think you're retarded.

I can't believe you are comparing Super Mario Brothers on the NES to I guess that's Doom 3. Because I'm sure the PC games back then looked so much better than NES graphics. Face it people, the difference between consoles and PC's are growing ever smaller so it's really not worth it to compare anymore.
PC games are more mature? Is there really that much difference in the games released?
Also it's ridiculous to say the graphics don't get better over the lifespan of a console. It's common knowledge that as the programmers get a better handle on the console the graphics will improve. Hence first second and third generation games. Anyway I think fighting over which is better is pointless because they each have their good and bad points, but to call PC games outright superior is ludicrous. It all depends on taste.

look at my newww threat :)

Are you THREATENING ME!?!? I need TP for my bunghole.

Thats the general concensus but the reasons why are all accross the boards so I dont think you can trust the conclusion. Hence the sig. ;)