Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kristine1975 | Hacker News Reader

Kristine1975

>It seems like every time there's a new game I need a new goddamned computer

That's what consoles are for :-)

Edit: This isn't supposed to be a snarky "console masterrace" comment, but merely the observation that consoles have fixed specs and a life-cycle of five or more years where you can play current games without having to buy new hardware. (I don't even own any consoles, unless you count emulators.)

View on HN

Or future-proofing your PC by not buying low/mid end parts. Spending an extra $400 when building so you can keep the PC for 4-6+ years instead of 1-2 years. If you don't mind playing games on "low/mid" console-equivalent graphics this isn't even necessary except for the most poorly optimized games. Unless you want to be playing the newest games on max/ultra settings and expect 60+fps at all times you will not need to buy new hardware or even the highest-end hardware at anywhere near that rate.

Unless you're buying a $350 Facebook-browsing machine to game on the lowest settings - you will not need to upgrade every 1-2 years to run games.

You lack the option to play the newest games at max/ultra settings at 60+ fps on consoles. Because the options simply don't exist and you can't update the hardware to allow for it. You get 30fps and med/med-high graphics at best.

waves a regal hand Why don't you simply buy a better machine?

So... Let them eat cake?

This is not an argument, it's obvious. Many of us are living on the edge as it is, and there are plenty of great games we can play, but games that are not fidelity backwards compatible lock out a class.

This is not that big of a deal -- its not like they're uni-text books or anything -- but it's similar territory. It's an excuse to bump up the price with the added insult to injury that you can't even steal the game cause you plebs wouldn't even have the hardware.

Unlike certain aspects of life where certain "necessities" end up costing more because they need to be purchased every so often and people who can afford to purchase in bulk or purchase higher quality end up spending less over time, entertainment is something which can be done on a budget.

Option A:

    Year 1: Buy $400 machine
    Year 2: Buy a new $400 machine
    Year 3: Buy a new $400 machine
    Total Cost: $1,200

Option B:

    Year 1: Buy nothing
    Year 2: Buy nothing
    Year 3: Buy $1,200 machine that will last the next 4-6 years, effectively saving $1,600-$2,400 in the process. 
    Total Cost: $1,200

I did Option B. Except it took four years - and it would have taken five years if I wasn't fortunate enough to get a better paying job during that time. Catch up on backlog of previous 2 years worth of games over time and, very likely, at a cheaper cost since they are now "dated" (saving even more money)

Instant gratification is not necessary - and learning how to avoid it often leads to making better investments.

Wow. If only people knew. Just get a better job and save for four years. Goes back to my original point, doesn't it?

You are essentially agreeing with me, because these are the exact measures most must go through -- only things don't always work out like that. Your computer breaks. You lose a job. You have to pay for other crap. Trade off after trade off for a game that cost the same as a big budget film. It's ludicrous.

They simply cannot afford a $350 computer each year if they cannot afford a $1,200 computer after {3 + n} years. Period. Full stop. There is no way they can spend more money but be incapable of spending less money if they're able to spend that money at all. That isn't how money works. If you don't have enough to spend less - you simply cannot afford to spend more than that. If they can (barely) afford a $350 machine each year, they aren't the level of poor you're trying to talk about. You're talking about people who can't even afford the $350 machine.

We aren't talking about how someone with more money initially has the privilege of spending less money over time (eg: the "better boots" scenario)

Getting a better job did speed things up a year but wasn't necessary. Which doesn't go back to your original point, at all. I had no problem with waiting five years for a decent computer if that had to be the case.

What are you on about? Stop straw manning me. When did I ever say saving will get your hearts desire means being able afford a 350 a year should afford you 1200 after 3 years? If you want to nitpick, you will see that I said one would have to save AND get a better job for the above to make sense.

My point was prices for casual entertainment vs occasional entertainment (computer games/movies,etc/ vs holidays/niche sports/etc) is dissonant when it comes to computer hardware + titles.

Yes, the hardware itself has better value than the holiday, because the results last for 4 years (best case for the games we're talking about), but the hardware is the medium -- it still requires paying extra for the actual game(s), plus all manner of extra circumstantial costs. In fact one may gain for more from holiday -- in terms of life experiences, satisfaction, well being, etc, in the long run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com