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. ;)

Trigger, it's pretty damn stupid to compare Doom 3 to SMB. Why not compare it to Halo a current generation game in the same genre.

But like I said. I'm not a graphics whore. I only care about fun gamplay. Graphics are just a bonus. And PCs aren't very far ahead of the consoles.

They may have more polygons and higher resolutions, but I don't give a crap about that kind of stuff. That's for the tech geeks to drool over. They don't make the games any more fun to play IMO.

I'd much rather play the original Mario Bros than Doom 3 because I don't much care for FPS games.

Josh, it's fine for you to say that, since everyone is entitled to their opinion. The fact is, however, that's not how the market as a whole seems to feel. Just look at the marketing for any new console that's been released since the beginning. Every one of them touted improved graphics as a major selling point. Half of all the hype about GC and XBox that I saw on this board last year was about how awesome the graphics for those systems were.

Most people get excited by great graphics and no matter how often you pipe in with "it's all about the gameplay," that's not going to change. And eventhough, I understand your point and agree with it to a large degree, I still find it silly for anyone to say that 3D graphics getting better wouldn't improve your enjoyment of a game.

I mean, if Mario Sunshine were coming out for N64 and it had the exact same gameplay as the GC version, would you choose the N64 version if it was say $10 less than the GC version? I mean, you'd have just as much fun since the gameplay is identical wouldn't you? The better graphics on the GC wouldn't add anything, right?

So is any discussion of THIS now off topic??? Or do we need three threads on this?

Graphics are just an added plus. Sure they're nice, and I don't mind buying a new console every 5 years to enjoy them.

I don't care enough to bother with the more frequent upgrading required on the PC front though.

And I know many people care a lot about graphics. Too much in fact. It's a big problem with the industry, and it's caused to much emphasis to be put on graphics and not enough on coming up with creative new gameplay.

I compared those two as a joke - why don't you chill out a little bit.

PCs are lightyears ahead of consoles and they always will be.

http://www.consolewire.com/images/si/regc0125-05.jpg

http://a112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/...m3_screen3.jpg

http://apd.virtualave.net/axbox/screens/halo/halo8.jpg

http://a112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/...om3_screen.jpg

If you can't tell the difference, then there's something wrong with your eyes.

A fair comparison would be Doom 3 running on xbox compared to running on PC. The tech in Halo is atleast 2 yrs older than Doom 3, of course it doesn't look as good. The comparison is moronic.

Anyway, if you want a good taste of the joys of PC gaming have a glance over at the Neverwinter Nights Self Help Tech Support forum, and see how many posts there are. It would be hilarious if I wasn't one of the poor saps posting.

Chris

Wow - I can't win - people calling me stupid and moronic. Anyway - what difference does it make if Doom 3 is a newer
game? The first Doom 3 screen shot I posted was made before the Xbox came out. The point of the argument is that consoles
can't keep up with PCs. Show me a console game that is set to come out sometime in the next year or even 2 years that has a
screen shot that even comes close to Doom 3. It's still up in the air whether Doom 3 will come out on Xbox or not - some say the
Xbox probably isn't powerful enough to handle Doom 3. If they release Doom 3 on Xbox, the game will probably have to be
modified so it'll run on it - like they did with Medal Of Honor for the PS2. Ever look at Medal of Honor for the PC versus for the
PS2? You're crazy if you think there's no difference.

http://ask.dgnet.nl/ShowProductFile.asp?FileID=3896

http://www.planetmedalofhonor.com/fi...s/shot0097.jpg

I won't argue that PC games don't look better. All I'm saying is they only difference is higher polygon counts and higher resolutions. That doesn't make the gameplay better. Doom 3 looks better than Halo, that doesn't mean it will be a better game than Halo or more fun to play.

My original point was that I don't see why some PC gamers shell out money year after year to play stuff like Doom 3 at the highest settings.

My only conclusion is that they are graphic whores or tech geeks that just get off on that kind of stuff.

I just want to have fun playing the game, I honestly don't care what it looks like.

Sadly I'm probably in the minority, which is why there are so many games that look great and play like crap.

I still would say that Halo single player (and coop) is better than anything going round on PC atm. Only Half-life 1 player comes close. Maybe Doom 3 will be better but who knows until it actually comes out.

Maybe the Xbox won't be able to handle Doom 3.. but the end result is that thousands of PC gamers will be cursing as they're forced to fork out hundreds of dollars for GeForce 4/5s, more ram, and fast CPUs. :p

Chris

Uhh...Someone who programmed Doom3 said the Xbox was powerful enough to handle Doom3. And Flay said someone was quoted as saying it was already running on the Xbox. Check out his thread.

I usually buy a video card a generation or two behind. I used my Voodoo 3 3000 for a long time then got a Voodoo 4 4500 cheap.

my most recent card was a Geforce 2 GTS card I got for a computer upgrade. then it stayed for my last new computer until I got a great deal on a Geforce 4 Ti4600 for $285 shipped.

this card will stay with me for a few years unless a great deal on a better card crops up. I tend to upgrade my computers slowly by finding deals and buying a part here or there.


In the last 5 years I have gone thru 4 video cards. however I have built new computers 4 times in that time also. all my older computers where stripped down with me using some parts on my upgrades and then I rebuilt them with parts from even older computers to give to family members. My mom is using my Voodoo 4 4500 P3 800 computer and my younger brother is using my Athlon 1.2 Ghz with geforce 2 GTS-v card. my other brother is using my old GTS card.

so my 2 of my old video cards are still being used by my family.

They love it when I decide to upgrade :)

Uhh... I didn't say it wasn't a possibility. In fact, I've been saying in another thread how I had heard it would make it to Xbox and everyone argued with me that it wouldn't - so whatever. Fact is, even if it does make it to a console, it won't look nearly as good. Anti-aliasing with high res graphics will look better than jaggies and low res graphics on a TV in any game any day.


That's your opinion - I've been playing First Person Shooters since forever and while Halo was fun to play on a TV in my living room and the controls were acceptable, the levels were repetitive and the story was lacking and the graphics weren't nearly as impressive as any FPS in the last 3 years. Halo doesn't even make my top 10 list of great FPS games. It does make my list of top 10 console games though. Besides - Halo was originally slated as a PC game, so as far as I'm concerned that doesn't really help your argument.


Good - I'm glad you've stopped arguing that PC games don't look better. You're also wrong if you think the only difference is polygon counts and higher resolutions. Better graphics makes the games more immersive for me, but then again I prefer more realistic games like first person shooters over platform games like Sonic or Mario or whatever. Doom 3 does indeed look better than Halo and while that doesn't mean it will be more fun to play, having seen the game in action, I can assure you it will be 100 times more fun to play.

Most gamers don't shell out money every year to play the latest games. Doom 3 should be able to run on most graphics cards purchased in the last 2 years. If a gamer is running old hardware at the time of Doom 3's release and they want to play it, by then they'll be able to pick up a video card for under 100 bucks that will do the job.

You're conclusion that people like me are graphic whores or tech geeks pisses me off first of all and second of all makes you look ignorant. If you are going to resort to insulting comments because you fail to understand (or even try to listen), then why am I even talking to you? I don't "get off" on upgrading my PC.

You can say you don't care what it looks like, but I do. That's why I posted the shots of Doom 3 versus Super Mario. We just play different games I guess. Graphics are important to me - and so is gameplay.

Very few PC games look great and play like crap - typically, they look like crap and play like crap. Daikatana was a highly anticipated FPS for the PC and when it came out the graphics were dated and the gameplay sucked. It seems to me that this phenomenon you are talking about (look great, play crap) is mainly a console problem based on the games I've been renting and buying. Also - this argument just sounds like you are bitter and frustrated because your argument has nothing to back it up. I never said you had to play PC games - all I'm saying is that I prefer PC games and I'd rather put 300 bucks into my computer than in the latest console system. I put 300 bucks into my computer and all my older games still work. I buy a new console for 300 bucks and I have to buy all new games to play on it. Only exception so far is the PS and PS2 - you buy a PS2 and you can still play all your PS games, but can you play your genesis or Super Nintendo games on a PS2? No. I don't think that my desire to upgrade my computer every few years makes me a geek or a whore. I don't flaunt my computer specs everywhere I go and I don't benchmark my PC either.

All I've been trying to do is answer your original baited question about why people like to buy new video cards every year. If you don't like my answer, then ask someone else - but don't try to insult me or people like me (which you have been trying to do starting with the original question). I can only assume that the answer you were seeking in the first place was "because PC gamers are dumbasses who have rich parents and aren't old enough to get a car to tweak out so they tweak out their PC for the purpose of small penis compensation".

Well as you said your opinion.. and I'll agree that repetitive levels was by far the biggest flaw in the game. With a bit more originality on the later levels, well it would have been something quite special.

However, I found the story enthralling.. the graphics perfect for a sci-fi setting.. the use of vehicles added a lot to the game.. the AI of the marines... the monsters were quite tough (particularly on the highest difficulty level), the 5.1 sound... loved the xbox controller as well.

These days it seems that single player mode in PC FPS is almost an after thought (if it exists at all). I've been playing SoF2 a lot lately and I played the single player missions for about an hr before I went straight back to the multiplayer (which I've play for so many hrs it's almost insane).

And yes I've been playing FPS games forever as well, from Wolvenstein/Doom to Quake (and all the mods) to Unreal, Halflife, etc... I even have a high endish pc as well :).

Chris

Every time I upgrade, I seem to manage to have enough extra parts to build a new frankenstein PC. I have 4 currently and hooking them up to the network is a blast. I've given away a few older frankensteins. Except my last computer which I built from scratch, I've been able to do a complete upgrade (processor, mobo, video, etc) for around 400 bucks. I've done that twice in 3 years - once would've been enough, but I wanted an extra PC. I think it's pretty cheap to upgrade these days, and it's not like I throw old parts away like they are garbage.

I hear what you're saying with SOF2. I preferred the original. I'm also a little disappointed so far with Jedi Outcast... it's supposed to get better though. Medal of Honor kicked ass. Deus Ex was awesome. Undying was great. Wolfenstein was great. No One Lives Forever was fun. There's about a dozen new FPS games on the horizon that look kick ass. What you're talking about with the single player experience being an afterthought - I can agree that that has been a trend for a year or so with the tactical shooters, Quake 3, Red Faction and Unreal Tournament etc - but the games on the horizon are shaping up to be more single player oriented. Duke, Doom, Red Faction 2, Deus Ex 2, Call of Cthulhu, Tron, XIII etc all look like they're going to rule. I'm excited. :)