Unpopular opinion(?) - People spend too much on gaming PCs

[GenericFanboy]

For me it would come down to a hobby. Same with people who like cars. Or anything in that matter. If you're passionate about it, you'll probably spend more.

[Tan3l6]

The more people "invest" in their hardware the more can hardware companies invest in research and development... at least in theory.

[Sauron]

$2000 is probably on the "too much" end of the spectrum but 1000-1500$ can make perfect sense if you're looking to play at high resolutions or framerates.

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, Marbo said:

Again apples and oranges. 

 

You are not renting the game or the equipment to play it on. 

 

Only when you own a copy of the movie and have something to watch it on does the comparison get close. 

 

? that makes the price per hour of the movie even worse if i factor in the monitor cost and i said youtube movie so the only overhead there is the server space for me to download the movie and an mmo has much more server overhead

[Marbo]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

? that makes the price per hour of the movie even worse if i factor in the monitor cost

Only if you watch that one move and only watch it one time. 

 

The issue with gaming only came along when games got competitive. It became pay to win. 

 

A stand alond game was all about beating your own high score or getting to the next level. Buying a better computer that might help you do that doesn't make you a better gamer or add to the enjoyment. 

[spartaman64]

Just now, Marbo said:

Only if you watch that one move and only watch it one time. 

like i said rent so you only have it for 30 days and i usually don't watch a movie more than twice and wait 2 years between the viewings 

[Marbo]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

like i said rent so you only have it for 30 days and i usually don't watch a movie more than twice and wait 2 years between the viewings 

And how many people could watch the movie with you for that one off price? 

 

Watching a movie at a cinema and the op are not comparable. 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Aereldor said:

That sounds like a rich person problem... Consoles (xbox one and ps4) don't even run the thing at 1080p or 30fps constant.

I'm not rich. When I play video games, anything substantially lower than 60fps for a prolonged period of time will give me motion sickness and sometimes migraines.

 

60fps is really the minimum I need to have a good time and I'm not alone in this.

 

If you don't believe me about not being rich I would urge you to consider this:

• Some of the components in my current rig where taken from my previous rig because they were still in great shape e.g. One of my HDDs, My PSU, my monitor and peripherals etc.
• At least several of the components in my current rig were purchased at a highly discounted price. My CPU was at least £100 ($150) less than MSRP and my motherboard was at least $50 (£75-80) cheaper than the RRP.
• A small part of the cost of my PC was paid for in an Amazon Gift Card Voucher from winning a prize draw.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Marbo said:

And how many people could watch the movie with you for that one off price? 

 

Watching a movie at a cinema and the op are not comparable. 

0? i dont watch movies with other people. and im not talking about watching movies at a cinema im talking about watching a movie on youtube

[Marbo]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

0? i dont watch movies with other people. and im not talking about watching movies at a cinema im talking about watching a movie on youtube

You were using the example of paying $15 at a cinema. Which you have now proved, in your case, to be good value. 

 

The equivalent of watching a movie in comparison to the op would be someone spending thousands on a home cinema compared to someone watching on a bog standard TV. 

 

Is the level  enjoyment any different. 

 

To a small amount of people yes. An expensive home cinema would increase the enjoyment. For a larger amount no, but they'll buy the home cinema equipment anyway. 

 

For most of us, not at all. 

 

So going back to the op I'd say yes a lot of people spend far more than they need to, to obtain peak enjoyment. 

 

But it's their money. 

 

 

[spartaman64]

5 minutes ago, Marbo said:

You were using the example of paying $15 at a cinema. Which you have now proved, in your case, to be good value. 

 

The equivalent of watching a movie in comparison to the op would be someone spending thousands on a home cinema compared to someone watching on a bog standard TV. 

 

Is the level  enjoyment any different. 

 

To a small amount of people yes. An expensive home cinema would increase the enjoyment. For a larger amount no, but they'll buy the home cinema equipment anyway. 

 

For most of us, not at all. 

 

So going back to the op I'd say yes a lot of people spend far more than they need to, to obtain peak enjoyment. 

 

But it's their money. 

 

 

well you pointed out that im renting the screen etc at the cinema also so i agreed with that and changed to youtube movies where i am only renting the movie. and even then the gaming pc i got and the amount ive spent on the game is still a much better value per hour of entertainment ive gotten. im just making the point that the OP probably wouldnt say ive wasted my money if i rent and watch a movie for 5 dollars so why would spending 1000+ on a gaming computer be a waste of money if ive gotten much better value out of it than renting said movie

[Marbo]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

well you pointed out that im renting the screen etc at the cinema also so i agreed with that and changed to youtube movies where i am only renting the movie. and even then the gaming pc i got and the amount ive spent on the game is still a much better value per hour of entertainment ive gotten

Again completely different arguments. The original argument was the equipment you're using. 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Marbo said:

Again completely different arguments. The original argument was the equipment you're using. 

the argument was whether or not spending more than 400 dollars on a gaming computer is a waste of money and in order to determine that I need some measure of value and i decided to compare it to the cost of a movie and the duration of entertainment you get out of a movie.

[Lord Vile]

56 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

the argument was whether or not spending more than 400 dollars on a gaming computer is a waste of money and in order to determine that I need some measure of value and i decided to compare it to the cost of a movie and the duration of entertainment you get out of a movie.

You're ignoring the Cost of games though too and assuming you won't rewatch films. A game costs £60 new and a Blu Ray costs £20. Say you watch a film 20 times over a few years that's £1 an hour. You'd have to get 60 hours game time in the same time period for the same value. On my library I have 3 games that's over 60 hours out of 176. Thats without factoring in a decent gaming PC will run you £600-800 and a blu ray player costs 50. 

 

Overall yes people spend too much on gaming PCs, £2000 is a ludicrous amount considering the only reason to get something that beefy is so you don't have to upgrade later (which is cheaper) or you're an eejit and play at 4K which is not worth the added cost. 

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You're ignoring the Cost of games though too and assuming you won't rewatch films. A game costs £60 new and a Blu Ray costs £20. Say you watch a film 20 times over a few years that's £1 an hour. You'd have to get 60 hours game time in the same time period for the same value. On my library I have 3 games that's over 60 hours out of 176. Thats without factoring in a decent gaming PC will run you £600-800 and a blu ray player costs 50. 

 

Overall yes people spend too much on gaming PCs, £2000 is a ludicrous amount considering the only reason to get something that beefy is so you don't have to upgrade later (which is cheaper) or you're an eejit and play at 4K which is not worth the added cost. 

I did include the cost of the game ive included the 400 I've spent on the mmo and i have over 15000 hours in the game. (1330+400)/15000 is around 12

[Lord Vile]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

I did include the cost of the game ive included the 400 I've spent on the mmo and i have over 15000 hours in the game. (1330+400)/15000 is around 12

Specs? 

[Mooshi]

People who match an i5 with an overpriced AIO when an i7 + air cooler would be similar.

 

Matching an overpriced aio in general with a Ryzen chip when knowing full well they aren't that hot / don't clock super high.

[Kaelon]

I know that this topic was inherently unpopular / incendiary, especially since the vast majority of people in the LTT community are, like myself, enthusiasts.  But I think that there are several use-cases for purchasing and/or building a PC:

 

1. General Consumers, by and large, will play sub-AAA titles casually and use PCs for productivity purposes. ~$400/PC (excluding peripherals) is plenty powerful for this audience, given the widespread availability of multi-core processors, cheap RAM, high-speed storage, and integrated / budget graphics that render most games at acceptable framerates with satisfactory levels of detail.
    
2. PC Gamers, or those who spend the majority of their "PC time" gaming rather than doing non-gaming tasks, will find that this ~$400 mileage varies based upon the subject of their gaming hobby.  Turn-based and grand strategy gamers, for example, will be fine play on a machine with lower specs because the game has nominal differences between the low-end and even the mid-tier for performance.  However, first-person shooters and immersive open-world RPGs have higher framerate requirements and lower-performing machines will show visual artifacts - such as dithering, aliases, skipped/missed framerates, and screen tearing - especially at low-to-medium specifications. 
    
3. Competitors, those who play in either amateur of professional esports, will inherently need mid-to-high-tier components in order to be seen credibly in their competition and to have an advantage in game. The ~$400 PC is inherently unacceptable to this audience, and the audience is arguably much larger than the OP may think it is.  Anyone who plays games in a group for a competitive end will feel the pressure to spend more on their hobby to have an advantage, even if that group is tiny and their immediate friend-circle, rather than open team-based competition. 
    
4. Enthusiasts, who the OP admits is excluded from the definition of "most people," inherently want the best quality for their hobby and ~$400 won't cut it other than as a thought experiment or a tinkering exercise as a proof-of-concept.  Think of this group as any other group of enthusiasts - be it stereo / home media enthusiasts, car enthusiasts, home improvement enthusiasts, etc.  These are min-max'ers, people whose passion (the "enthusiasm") is directly derived from their ability to drive quality on their own terms.  This is a pretty large definition and different price-points and budgets for this group (since, after all, the entire LTT could be thought of as enthusiasts), but entry-level or mass-consumption machines defeat the point here. 

The reality that the OP cites, re: high refresh-rate monitors, is a use case that cuts across groups 2, 3, and 4 above.  If you're playing an FPS game, even as a general PC gamer, you will notice screen-tearing on 60 hz displays playing with a mid-tier graphics card; if you're competitive, ~120 hz with system synchronization (G-SYNC or FreeSync) is a basic expectation to avoid critical time-driven lag; and, enthusiasts, by and large, wouldn't tolerate something less than fluid (or as Linus calls it, "buttery-smooth") refresh rates.

 

Just my two cents.

[Marbo]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

the argument was whether or not spending more than 400 dollars on a gaming computer is a waste of money and in order to determine that I need some measure of value and i decided to compare it to the cost of a movie and the duration of entertainment you get out of a movie.

No, by bringing up the cinema you were asking if gaming was better value. A completely different argument. 

 

Your 12 cent per hour could be much higher or lower depending on your system specs. The original question was does spending more on your system improve the quality of your experience. Do you really need to spend $2000+ to get a good gaming experience? Does turning your settings from high to medium spoil your enjoyment?

 

What I was doing with your movie reference was trying to bring it as close to the gaming scenario. Which means watching the movie at home. Then it come down to how you watch it. Do you need a high end home cinema to enjoy it or can you enjoy it as much on a cheaper TV albeit at a lower picture and sound quality. 

 

 

[spartaman64]

26 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Specs? 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/K2vHmg

idk how to price the 1070 ti its like 400 maybe

[spartaman64]

7 minutes ago, Marbo said:

No, by bringing up the cinema you were asking if gaming was better value. A completely different argument. 

 

Your 12 cent per hour could be much higher or lower depending on your system specs. The original question was does spending more on your system improve the quality of your experience. Do you really need to spend $2000+ to get a good gaming experience? Does turning your settings from high to medium spoil your enjoyment?

 

What I was doing with your movie reference was trying to bring it as close to the gaming scenario. Which means watching the movie at home. Then it come down to how you watch it. Do you need a high end home cinema to enjoy it or can you enjoy it as much on a cheaper TV albeit at a lower picture and sound quality. 

 

 

im talking about my computer personally and in my case. i play on the lowest settings to get the maximum fps since in the game i play higher fps speeds up your animations. and yes i dont like losing especially because of stuff out of my control so playing at a lower fps will spoil my enjoyment somewhat before i upgraded my cpu i would drop combo and my opponent survive with a little bit of hp all the time or mouse move rushing wind wouldnt work and i get caught with a cc. after i upgrade i get 40 extra fps and most of those problems disappeared.

 

I don't do large scale but a high end pc is even more important for people that do. There are people with i9 9900k and 2080tis getting 30 fps at the lowest settings during siege

[Marbo]

Maybe a different approach to online gaming is needed. 

 

With consoles you're competing on a level playing field. 

 

Pc is encouraging pay to win mentality. Its making people believe they must have the best equipment. 

 

Gaming before this was all about being with mates and taking turns on the same computer, or even sharing the same keyboard in a 2 player game. Now it's about spending as much as you can to beat someone you don't know and never will. 

 

 

[Sakkura]

5 hours ago, Aereldor said:

I disagree. An i3 9100F + RX 570 is going to run the vast majority of stuff at 1080p 60fps at graphics settings that are indistinguishable from max. That's not 'crap' at all. 

That's not a $400 system though. That's a $550-600 system.

[IkeaGnome]

When I built my PC, I asked myself a few questions. Do I need 1440p? No? Do I want it? Yes. What will hold up to 1440p with AAA titles for a while? I ended up where I'm at. I spent a lot on my PC, but I knew I was getting ready to buy a house and most likely won't be able to afford a full refresh for a while. The money I'm saving with micro upgrades can instead be used to put into my house or other projects in the long run. Yes it doesn't financially make sense in the short term for my use(general gaming), but when you're doing upgrades to your pc for the next few times and I don't have to, I'll be laughing to the bank.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Marbo said:

Maybe a different approach to online gaming is needed. 

 

With consoles you're competing on a level playing field. 

 

Pc is encouraging pay to win mentality. Its making people believe they must have the best equipment. 

 

Gaming before this was all about being with mates and taking turns on the same computer, or even sharing the same keyboard in a 2 player game. Now it's about spending as much as you can to beat someone you don't know and never will. 

 

 

in the mmo i play you could p2w but it will cost you like tens of thousands of dollars to reach my gear level and to reach my girlfriend's gear level (she has much better gear than me) you are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars LUL and i dont think a 3600 cpu and a 1070 ti is the best equipment I think i went with the value options