[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

If you plan ahead you don't need to upgrade a PC but once every 3 years, or so, and when you upgrade you can usually do it piece meal; memory here, vid card there, processor, sometimes mobo later. Yes; you will not get the ubermostbest performance or graphics (but they will be as good or better than a console). (I just put most of my surplus, newest old pieces (3 years old) into a junk box PC; it will run crysis (not at high frame rates or resolutions, but it is playable) and I expect that it will run Farcry 2 when it comes out, this fall.)

This assumes a certain level of proficiency not inherent to the average Joe. And honestly, upgrading once every three years is going to mean a degradation in overall visual quality throughout the time frame in which you own that particular PC, something which contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a PC-gamer. Those may seem like opposing counter-arguments, but they're actually quite harmonious if you consider the point I'm trying to make.

The big down side to PCs is that you get a limited amount of good, new, game titles every year.

Agree with you there.

The big upside to PCs is that they are good for more than just gaming; word processing, video processing, home theater, music, reading, art, photographic processing, stock trading etc. etc. Trying to justify a PC for just gaming is a bit silly, IMO. (I actually cannot conceive of spending 3,000 pounds on a PC; you can almost certainly build the same identical machine for much less, even if you include phase change (refrigerated processors)).

Here's the thing, however, the justification in cost argument is always moot in that the cost is directly related to building a machine capable of playing games, and not doing all those other things -- which could be done on a PC that costs far, far less than what is implied for playing mainstream gaming software. In other words, a PC being able to surf the web and process words is about as relevant as being able to listen to music and watch DVD's on your PS3 - they're both irrelevant, albeit considerably nice, bonuses if the main purpose of the machine is to play games.

(Edit: I thought I should clarify, since the above is in agreement to your post but reads more like a rebuttal; what I mean by this is that in an argument of platforms, as a gaming device the PC requires a certain investment and that the normal argument presented in these situations is one of cost. Being that this argument is based on gaming platforms I both agree with you but need to point out that despite being able to build a PC for less the normal PC gamer is not normally concerned with what other functions his box is capable of but how well it performs doing the one thing he built it for -- gaming.)

I think that there is a major disconnect here; If one were to limit the resolutions and frame rates of a gaming PC to those of consoles and to make "hacking the box" the only way to upgrade then there would be little upgrade cost to the PC. If on the other hand we were able to upgrade parts for consoles then people would spend the money (and complain) about the high cost of upgrading their consoles.

This point is rather moot as it's completely hypothetical. The world doesn't work this way at current, and therefore there is no precedent and we cannot, in good conscience, make assumptions based on it or form points from it.

Finally; there is something about replacing my PC's innerds that just makes me feel good!

Enjoy!

As a very, very longtime hardware enthusiast I completely agree with you. I spent years devoting all my hard-earned money on components; I was a member of XS at its inception and if it weren't for me and a few other members of GameFAQ's (Kunark, Sheo and a handful of others) I'm convinced the PC hardware boards would still believe overclocking a buzzword for time-based interior design choices. However, during most of my days doing P4T mods, 1.6a overclocks and learning how to build cooling systems well before after market solutions had hit the market, I rarely, if ever, played games -- and the same thing went for quite a few hardware buffs. In other words, I still love replacing my PC's innards, but generally speaking the hardware crowd and gaming community can be so vehemently opposed to one another that using this as a basis for loving PC gaming borders on travesty.

...said with all due respect, of course.