The Increasing Cost of Gaming

[bean19]

In a recent article (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122170,00.asp) at PC World (http://www.pcworld.com), Senior Associate Editor, Tom Manelli (geektech@pcworld.com), asks the question "Would you pay $600 for a video card?"

NVidia's move irritated some of my tech-savvy friends, a few of whom seem to think that access to the fastest gear on the planet is an inalienable geek right. One proclaimed, "They've priced it right out of the range of their enthusiast fans." Another stated simply, "Nobody will buy that." And a third mumbled something along the lines of "That's just not right."

I'm sorry, guys, but that's a bunch of garbage. First, we're not talking about a company gouging prices for penicillin--we're talking about a company selling a graphics card. Second, I don't think even true enthusiasts are crazy enough to run out and buy every new chip that NVidia--or Advanced Micro Devices, ATI Technologies, or Intel--launches. (I'll get back to this point in a minute.) Third, somebody must be buying these high-end parts: If nobody did, then the companies would stop pushing their price tags skyward with each successive product introduction.
Are they price-gouging? I recently looked at upgrading my video card and found that today's $200 card only offers about a 30 FPS increase over the card I bought for $200 over 2 years ago. That's not a significant enough improvement for $200 and I am an enthusiast who nevertheless refuses to pay over $250 for a graphics card. Has the upgrade cycle slowed down so significantly, and will this lead to lowered sales for graphics card manufacturers?

[Theycallmeweezie]

I would never pay more than $250.

[Adam Blue]

I bought my current card in 2003...and I still have no need to upgrade, which is vastly different than in the past(from what I can remember). I paid $500, and am willing to do that every few generations. But it hasn't been needed yet...

[RichardTowler]

I don't really find the price of video cards silly, but what I do find silly is the rate they come out, every week there's a new model out it seems, and than there's a new model to support that model, than a few months later the next version is out and the process is repeated.

[Heretic Machine]

My card has been going for about three years now, and it's still running everything just fine. Wasn't even top of the line back then, still does pretty much everything.

I think some people over-rate the value of these new cards... But anyhow, if I were to update, I wouldn't pay over $250 for a card and I'd expect it to be damn good for that price. Hell, if modding ever catches on to the console world, I won't even need to be a PC gamer anymore.

[bean19]

I don't really find the price of video cards silly, but what I do find silly is the rate they come out, every week there's a new model out it seems, and than there's a new model to support that model, than a few months later the next version is out and the process is repeated.

Yeah. . . but they aren't significant improvements. . .

It used to be that if you had a GeForce 2 and the GeForce 3 came out it was the difference between being able to play a game and have fun or the game slugging along at an impossibly low framerate.

Now the difference is not whether or not you can play the games, but whether or not you can turn on anti-aliasing, soft shadows, and other extra effects and still get a healthy 40 FPS (anything over 30 is just gravy).

And although there is a new card every few months (it seems) they tend to be only slight improvements over previous GPUs. The 7800 is actually the first truly impressive step up I've seen in contrast to my 2 year old card. . . but I can't buy it, and I don't expect it to be affordable at least for a year (probably 2 given the slow down in actual improvements).

This is the card I would expect to be paying $250 for right now if the progression in GPU technology had not slowed.

[dr_wily]

i always go for best bang/buck from reviews at either anandtech or tomshardware (vga charts only).

but then again im cheap as hell.

video card depreciation isnt nearly as bad anymore either.. shoot ive had my used 9700pro for 1.5 years which was bought at about 130$. It's nearly worth that much now. In the computer world thats just wrong.

[crashedout]

When the new games use all the features of the new cards, then you might HAVE to upgrade just to play. Figure in a large LCD that you have to play at native for it to look good and there is another reason to upgrade. Personally my card budget tops out at the cost of the top console, anyting higher does not make sense to me. The rich may like paying more for those 30fps though. To each their own.

[Kelegacy]

It's ridiculous. Looks like I'll be playing Oblivion on a [gay-named] 360 or PS3.

[RMan]

IMO, the insecure or rich people willing to pay for these things deserve to lose their money. You can spend $100 on the 6200, which has the same core features as their new card, you’ll just have to run it at one or two resolutions lower to get the same frame rate. Not exactly new though, at any given time you can buy a top of the line CPU for 700 or more, or pay 1/3rd that and get a processor that’s 10% slower. Those that put themselves out in order to get the absolute newest hardware have much bigger problems than losing $600, if you ask me.

[Heretic Machine]

video card depreciation isnt nearly as bad anymore either.. shoot ive had my used 9700pro for 1.5 years which was bought at about 130$. It's nearly worth that much now. In the computer world thats just wrong.

Same card as me, yo! :p

[Leaving Hope]

I have an aging ATI 9600 XT, and it's about time to upgrade. However, I'm with Perigon: $250 is as high as I'll go.

$600 is ludicrous as in ludicrous speed.

[bean19]

I have an aging ATI 9600 XT, and it's about time to upgrade. However, I'm with Perigon: $250 is as high as I'll go.

Same here.

The thing is, the best upgrade for the money out there right now is the Ultra 6600 or the x700. . . both of which are fine cards if you are starting out, but really aren't that much better than a 9600. . . not $250 better in any case.

[mos]

have much bigger bank accounts

There, fixed.

Figured I'd edit: I've got a job that gives me a salary that I simply don't know what to do with. I have one (real) hobby, so I spend it on that. /shrug

[Venkman]

If I had the money to spend, sure. With my current income? I'll stay in the ranks of console gamers.

[Zeal]

Even rich people aren't willing to pay $600 for a videocard that is essentially the same shit as the one before. This is called exploiting consumer ignorance (kinda like what Circuit City does on a daily basis).

And PC geeks wonder why people choose consoles over PC gaming...

[bean19]

There, fixed.

Figured I'd edit: I've got a job that gives me a salary that I simply don't know what to do with. I have one (real) hobby, so I spend it on that. /shrug

mos - I am in heavy school debt. Can you buy me a graphics card or subsidize the purchase so that I only invest $250? :)

Just kidding (but feel free to PM me anyway ;) ). However, EA is renewing the site's hosting fees and asked for donations in this thread (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4496).

[Voodoo]

In my system I have a Radeon 9800 Standard 128 MB ($149 in 2003) and a Obsidian X-24 Voodoo2 SLI ($45 in 2002) and do not have a problem running modern games and classics whenever I like. The 9800 runs the new ones great and you can't beat the Obsidian for the older Glide based games.

[Reanimated]

How about the increasing cost of golf?

A large bucket of balls at the driving range cost me 12 bucks yesterday! FUCK!

Not to mention that I stopped to get gas on the way there and paid nearly 3 bucks a gallon. SHIT. ON. A. BRICK!

All that money and I've still got a horrible slice. :(

[RMan]

Figured I'd edit: I've got a job that gives me a salary that I simply don't know what to do with.
Yea, that's why I said if you put yourself out to get it, if $600 doesn't matter, then no problem.

[Kelegacy]

How about the increasing cost of golf?

A large bucket of balls at the driving range cost me 12 bucks yesterday! FUCK!

Not to mention that I stopped to get gas on the way there and paid nearly 3 bucks a gallon. SHIT. ON. A. BRICK!

All that money and I've still got a horrible slice. :(

That's highway fucking robbery. I mean, if you were able to KEEP the balls, that's one thing. But to hit their own balls? I paid about 6 bucks for a big bucket on Saturday evening and 2.57 cents a gallon for gas today. It's cheaper to fill a gas tank with lobsters almost.

I get retribution for my depleted cash by taking handfuls of free toothpicks and dinner mints from restaurants. I also steal urinal cakes.

[Ailer]

We in the restaraunt industry have set up a man in every dark alley for you Kelegacy. If you would please step into one of them, we would very much appreciate it. It is eithor that, or please stop stealing our bloody urinal cakes. Those things are fucking expensive.

[Taco]

They'll charge what the market will support, which is a lot.

I bought a BFG 6800 Ultra at launch. I'm guilty.

[Reanimated]

That's highway fucking robbery. I mean, if you were able to KEEP the balls, that's one thing. But to hit their own balls? I paid about 6 bucks for a big bucket on Saturday evening and 2.57 cents a gallon for gas today. It's cheaper to fill a gas tank with lobsters almost.

I get retribution for my depleted cash by taking handfuls of free toothpicks and dinner mints from restaurants. I also steal urinal cakes.





Admittedly, this is a very nice range that I go to because they keep their pitching greens/traps very nice, but you're right - highway robbery. I normally go to the range twice a week, but I only hit this one about once a month to get on their greens. The price went up a dollar since the last time I was there. :confused:

The gas pissed me off more than the bucket of balls, though.

[Hewie]

Radeon 8500LE represent!

[Frogleg Special]

If these graphics card technology is exclusively made then this exorbitant price can stay. But no, there in the market you can get better (albeit for 6-12 months period) and cheaper graphics chip on consoles.

Sorry, I think NVidia and ATI are shooting their own foot. Consoles are going to be more popular and they become Sony and MS lackeys in the long run if they don't give PC gaming an edge.

[Zurik]

Funny, when I saw this post, I assumed it would be about the increase cost of games. Like how all the 360 games are looking around $59.99? Yeah, video cards are going up to insane price heights. I saw the pci-express 6800 ultra for $700 on newegg. I'd only get a card like that if it would be decent for at least 3 years, but lately its been barely a year before a new line comes out.

[bean19]

If these graphics card technology is exclusively made then this exorbitant price can stay. But no, there in the market you can get better (albeit for 6-12 months period) and cheaper graphics chip on consoles.

Sorry, I think NVidia and ATI are shooting their own foot. Consoles are going to be more popular and they become Sony and MS lackeys in the long run if they don't give PC gaming an edge.

Actually, I was asking someone in the game industry how Sony and Microsoft can afford GPUs that are "twice as powerful" as the best cards on the market during E3. He explained that nVidia and Radeon most probalby defer a portion of the cost in order to get licensing deals on software. Basically they sell the cards at cost and get a peice of the pie from every peice of software sold, just like Microsoft and Sony.

I wish someone would write a story on this. I tend to beleive him, but you know. . . this is unconfirmed, and is a game developer, not a Sony or Microsoft rep.

[Goronmon]

Now the difference is not whether or not you can play the games, but whether or not you can turn on anti-aliasing, soft shadows, and other extra effects and still get a healthy 40 FPS (anything over 30 is just gravy).
I think you hit on the difference right there. What I think is happening is thata few years ago, the graphics were still relatively simple in-games. It was more about how many polygons you could push, stuff like that.

As visuals aim their sights at realism, the whole focus changes. Instead of just wanting as many polygons as possible, people want realistic lighting/shading, reflections, the whole 9-yards. The computations for such things is a lot more complex than just drawing polygons, thus the differences between previous genres becomes more and more subtle.

Sure, I think prices are rediculous. But to say that the performance increases over the last few years haven't been significant is just being ignorant, IMO.

[bean19]

Sure, I think prices are rediculous. But to say that the performance increases over the last few years haven't been significant is just being ignorant, IMO.

That 30 FPS is running at the same resolution and with the same graphics settings.

I'm not saying they aren't making advances, but I am saying that the rate of advancement seems to have slowed down a lot.

If you bought a card 4 years ago for $200 it would be a peice of stinky crap compared to a $200 card bought 2 years ago, but a $200 card bought today is not nearly as large of a performance improvement.

They're either flogging the market for every cent, or they are plateauing in tech advancements. . . or a combination of both.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy they made a card that can spit out 30 extra FPS, but I wish they'd made it 2 years ago so that the 7800 was made one year ago so that the 7800 was now the $200 card. I'm not downplaying the importance of the advancement, but speaking to the slowing rate of advancment and how it affects me as a consumer.

[Heretic Machine]

I can play WoW with the settings quite high, at 1280x1024, and never drop below 30fps except when I enter the STUPID-ZONES (Ironforge and the like)... But everyone is that way. This is with a three year old card though, that was mid-range at the time.

[Blue]

I got my card about 7 months ago for about 250 bucks and I was crying the whole way home. Why? Because I just spent 250 dollars on a single video card. That and I was terrified of my wife's reaction to said purchase. I have a feeling this is the first and last vid card I'm going to purchase unless they release Star Wars Episode Best Game Eva'

[BenSkywalker]

On some of the other forums I frequent SLId 7800GTXs and 6800GTs are quite popular- I find it amusing that people here find the price of a single board to be so high.

Look at the price of a top of the line A64 FX, X2 or PentiumD and compare it to vid cards and the vid cards are considerably less(unless you SLI them) while a CPU for one quarter the money will be ~10%-15% slower which is nothing at all like GPUs-

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050705/vga-charts-pcie-09.html

Looking at that chart non of the older boards can hit 40FPS average running 1024x768 without AA or AF enabled, that's just sad. For CoR there are playability concerns unless you want to dial back the visuals quite a bit.

For another comparison-

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050524/vga_charts-08.html

If you scroll down to the bottom and check out the best visual settings for D3(16x12 w/4xAA, 16xAF) you'll see that the $1K 6800U SLI setup is 700% faster then the $200 6600GT- nothing at all like CPU comparisons where the high end never exceeds linear gain per dollar spent. I don't bat an eye at $600 GPU prices- that was the cost of a V2 SLI setup when that hit and a whole lot of gamers were running that. Now, $1200 for a GTX SLI setup may be a little steep for me ATM, but that is mainly due to the 7800GT being SLI ready for $300 less with very close performance levels.

[Dracula-X]

Actually, I was asking someone in the game industry how Sony and Microsoft can afford GPUs that are "twice as powerful" as the best cards on the market during E3. He explained that nVidia and Radeon most probalby defer a portion of the cost in order to get licensing deals on software. Basically they sell the cards at cost and get a peice of the pie from every peice of software sold, just like Microsoft and Sony.

I wish someone would write a story on this. I tend to beleive him, but you know. . . this is unconfirmed, and is a game developer, not a Sony or Microsoft rep.
I wouldn't doubt it but I'd sooner believe volume purchasing and long term contracts are what makes it possible. We know Sony plans to ramp up Cell production to 1 million units *a month*, likewise needing as many GPUs. Microsoft is likely going to scale similarly, and both companies will undoubtedly top 30 - 40 million consoles, easy. These massive, nearly guaranteed numbers must have both Nvidia and ATI giggling like schoolgirls - but I'd say the leverage belongs to Sony/Microsoft, for Nvidia/ATI can't risk letting either go to the competition and so must offer sweet deals get their business.

[baz]

I'm guilty of buying, I've a 7800GTX. I earn enough that I don't mind the price, and gaming is my only expensive hobby so I can easily justify the expense every two years so I can play all the new games with extra flashness turned on.

[TRiLoGY]

Ive paid upto £450 in the past, that is $815 Approx

[H.Bogard]

funny ms and sony are going to be selling their consoles IN LOSS just to earn marketshare, but then again they get their earning from game licenses...but then AGAIN AGAIN nvidia and ATI also get a piece of the pie with their twimntbp and gitg campaigns.

[Roc Ingersol]

I've gotta thank the vid card guys.
If it wasn't for spiraling PC gaming costs and the short lifecycle, I wouldn't have gone back to console gaming. Saved me a boatload in time, money and frustration.

My PC only needs to play WoW. It plays WoW well. I don't see upgrades coming.

[mister_slim]

It's cheaper to fill a gas tank with lobsters almost.
Spoken like a true Mainer.
I wouldn't doubt it but I'd sooner believe volume purchasing and long term contracts are what makes it possible. We know Sony plans to ramp up Cell production to 1 million units *a month*, likewise needing as many GPUs. Microsoft is likely going to scale similarly, and both companies will undoubtedly top 30 - 40 million consoles, easy. These massive, nearly guaranteed numbers must have both Nvidia and ATI giggling like schoolgirls - but I'd say the leverage belongs to Sony/Microsoft, for Nvidia/ATI can't risk letting either go to the competition and so must offer sweet deals get their business.
I think, in MS's case, ATI was paid to develop and blueprint the card, and now MS will have whoever they want manufacture it. ATI's job is pretty much done now. But yeah, the OEMs can get by with cheaper lowend cards for most of their PCs, and fewer people are upgrading their PCs compulsively, so the high-end cards aren't as profitable as they were in the past.

[51|RandoM]

Are they price-gouging? I recently looked at upgrading my video card and found that today's $200 card only offers about a 30 FPS increase over the card I bought for $200 over 2 years ago. That's not a significant enough improvement for $200 and I am an enthusiast who nevertheless refuses to pay over $250 for a graphics card. Has the upgrade cycle slowed down so significantly, and will this lead to lowered sales for graphics card manufacturers?

You do realize that they improved quite a bit more than just framerate---which is one reason the framerate jump itself isn't as big as you'd like.

I don't think they're price-gouging at all. They are letting retailers price gouge on new cards when quantities are limited, though. Factor in the following:

a) complexity of GPU, especially compared to a general purpose CPU. These things are becoming freaking monsters nowadays.
b) The relatively short development cycle, and consequently short lifecycle of your average GPU architecture. They have to pump these out very quickly to remain competitive.
c) increasing memory densities, higher speed memory.

[bean19]

You do realize that they improved quite a bit more than just framerate---which is one reason the framerate jump itself isn't as big as you'd like.


The 30 FPS comparison is from using the same settings. . . same resolution, same anti-aliasing, etc.

[The_Reckoning]

Fuck you all, and all your opinions I hate you.

[/flame][/joke]

Anyway, I think people can buy what they like. The cards come out high priced so the enthusiasts, impatients and professionals can get the best bits first. Then they gradually lower the prices and people see them as bargains, and buy them at about half the price of the original.

And just because you can't afford the best stuff, it doesn't mean the people who can have anything wrong with them. Maybe they just don't enjoy games when they're on sub-par performance.

[bean19]

The_Reckoning - You need to take a reading comprehension class. No one is making fun of people who buy over-priced cards.

[Taco]

IMO, the insecure or rich people willing to pay for these things deserve to lose their money.

In any case I have the money. I bought a 6800 ultra on release for about 500. I was running Doom3 on Ultra High with fsaa and af on at 45 FPS, and one step below Ultra at 4xfsaa and 8 or 16af(I can't remember) at 50FP.

HalfLife2 ran even better. In this case ATI's best topped it, but for the same amount of money.

There is no other card I could of purchased where I could run it at that detail, not even close, I have no regrets and I'm not going to buy another card for probably another 2 years. The 6800 Ultra was arguably(with ATI) the best card on the market for nearly a year.

In my opinion the fastest cards these days out perform the fastest cards of 5 years ago. If you buy a $200-$300 card you are still getting a card that can run everything damn well, just like 5 years ago. But now if you by the $500 you can pump it up to 1600x1200 and max out AF and AA.