Linus tech Tips and his hot take on bldg a PC that can compare to a PS5 for $500 (hint it's bs :)

laynelane

Veteran
14 Jul 2022
1,019
2,110
Yeah it's BS. I did a hypothetical parts shopping for a PS5-equivalent PC and the cheapest you can get is probably ~ $780. Which is obviously more than PS5's $499.

However, you can theoretically pay less in the long run if you were also subscribing to PS+ for the entire 7 or so years of a console gen primarily for online play, whereas online play is free for PC. Because at that point you're looking at $499 PS5 (disc edition) + ~ $350 (PS+ Essentials for 7 years, assuming you could get a deal of $50/year and this was before the price increase), or $849 when all's said and done. That's about $70 more than a PC equivalent PS5 would run you for.

That's actually how Linus should've looked at doing the comparison, not with the way this video did. But even for that comparable hypothetical build, I had to search on a deal for a couple of the parts, meaning the common price for said parts is a bit higher. Also had to go for the cheapest possible casing. Honestly I'd say you should probably spend at least another $50 for a more robust casing, KB&M...and maybe for a slightly better GPU another ~ $50 on top of that, but you're still within spitting distance of what an actual PS5 with 7 years worth of PS+ Essentials (on a really good deal) would net you.

A person elsewhere brought up a really good point about PS+. People tend to use it only as a 'cost' measure in these kinds of comparisons. However, due to the included games, it can also save money for people. That's was the experience of the person who brought up this point - they paid for PS+, yes, but the value of the included games (which meant they no longer had to purchase those games) paid off the subscription cost annually.
 

Banana

Well-known member
10 Jan 2023
322
219
Yeah if you can't afford better just get a console. Of course then you have to pay for online.

A person elsewhere brought up a really good point about PS+. People tend to use it only as a 'cost' measure in these kinds of comparisons. However, due to the included games, it can also save money for people. That's was the experience of the person who brought up this point - they paid for PS+, yes, but the value of the included games (which meant they no longer had to purchase those games) paid off the subscription cost annually.
You could count the free games on EGS every week too if you wanted. Those don't require a subscription.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Systemshock2023

laynelane

Veteran
14 Jul 2022
1,019
2,110
Yeah if you can't afford better just get a console. Of course then you have to pay for online.


You could count the free games on EGS every week too if you wanted. Those don't require a subscription.

You could, but the point is that simply writing off PS+ as additional cost (only) may not be true for all users.
 
  • thinking_hard
Reactions: flaccidsnake

flaccidsnake

Veteran
2 May 2023
2,997
2,526
Another compelling mini PC:

This feels very similar to the handheld PC market right before Steam Deck dropped. We need somebody like ASUS to come through with the $700 version running an OS designed for gaming.
 

ToTTenTranz

Veteran
Icon Extra
4 Aug 2023
1,553
1,610
Another compelling mini PC:

This feels very similar to the handheld PC market right before Steam Deck dropped. We need somebody like ASUS to come through with the $700 version running an OS designed for gaming.
What you're describing is a Steam Machine and that was a massive failure because the overhead from OEMs was massive and people just preferred to build DIYs instead.

The Steam Deck and the other handheld PCs are successful hardware-wise because you can't really DIY a handheld PC at the moment.
Perhaps with LPCAMM we might eventually get handhelds where you can switch storage and RAM, though.


The first iteration of the failed SMACH-Z actually had a ton of modularity in mind, as you could even switch the SoC using a technology from a company that eventually filed for bankrupcy.
 

flaccidsnake

Veteran
2 May 2023
2,997
2,526
What you're describing is a Steam Machine and that was a massive failure because the overhead from OEMs was massive and people just preferred to build DIYs instead.

The Steam Deck and the other handheld PCs are successful hardware-wise because you can't really DIY a handheld PC at the moment.
Perhaps with LPCAMM we might eventually get handhelds where you can switch storage and RAM, though.


The first iteration of the failed SMACH-Z actually had a ton of modularity in mind, as you could even switch the SoC using a technology from a company that eventually filed for bankrupcy.
If the Steam Deck had 2013 Steam Machines game compatibility, we wouldn't be talking about it. Things have changed. Things have improved.

It's hilarious that you disagree with my sensible points and then talk about the SMACH-Z which was a total fraud.
 

ToTTenTranz

Veteran
Icon Extra
4 Aug 2023
1,553
1,610
It's hilarious that you disagree with my sensible points and then talk about the SMACH-Z which was a total fraud.
What other sensible points? Sorry I didn't read the rest of the thread, only this latest post.


I believe the Smach-Z was a failure out of incompetence, not out of fraudulent intentions.
ThePhawx had (has?) a fully working prototype.

 

anonpuffs

Veteran
Icon Extra
29 Nov 2022
10,463
11,917
What you're describing is a Steam Machine and that was a massive failure because the overhead from OEMs was massive and people just preferred to build DIYs instead.

The Steam Deck and the other handheld PCs are successful hardware-wise because you can't really DIY a handheld PC at the moment.
Perhaps with LPCAMM we might eventually get handhelds where you can switch storage and RAM, though.


The first iteration of the failed SMACH-Z actually had a ton of modularity in mind, as you could even switch the SoC using a technology from a company that eventually filed for bankrupcy.
I disagree that OEM overhead is what killed steam machines.

There are a LOT of casuals who buy prebuilt gaming rigs that have 50% or more markup on component costs.
 
24 Jun 2022
3,956
6,899
A person elsewhere brought up a really good point about PS+. People tend to use it only as a 'cost' measure in these kinds of comparisons. However, due to the included games, it can also save money for people. That's was the experience of the person who brought up this point - they paid for PS+, yes, but the value of the included games (which meant they no longer had to purchase those games) paid off the subscription cost annually.

That is a good point; it does kind of predicate itself on the idea there are enough games to your liking in the service to make a sum which offsets the cost you pay for said service.

However, something like PS+ has at least a 2x advantage over Game Pass of realizing that because it has over 2x the number of games. And if you compare just PS+ Essentials and Game Pass Core (both of which provide online gaming access), the PS+ advantage in realizing that increases to over 16x at the minimum because Game Pass Core only offers 50 games in rotation.

That doesn't even consider the type of games on offer between both; since PlayStation has the stronger software catalog, that most likely always comes into play even when the total number of games offered between both platform's subscription services is equal, let alone when there are comparable tiers where PS+ has the numbers advantage.

You could count the free games on EGS every week too if you wanted. Those don't require a subscription.

Does EGS offer a back catalog of 100s of games in addition to the free weekly games? Are the free weekly games good? How many are released per week?
 
OP
OP
Gamernyc78

Gamernyc78

MuscleMod
28 Jun 2022
20,386
16,652
What other sensible points? Sorry I didn't read the rest of the thread, only this latest post.


I believe the Smach-Z was a failure out of incompetence, not out of fraudulent intentions.
ThePhawx had (has?) a fully working prototype.


I didn't even know about this one.
 

ToTTenTranz

Veteran
Icon Extra
4 Aug 2023
1,553
1,610
because they took people's crowdfunding money and never released the thing. they're frauds.


It depends on your definition of fraud. The moment a company enters bankruptcy there's a process of liquidation of its assets to give back the money to its lenders by order of arrival. First off were the initial investors and then would be the backers. Since they spent the crowdfunding money trying to actually launch the thing, there was no money to give back to most backers.


Considering how far they went with the project with a bunch of fully working units out there, were even mentioned by AMD's press releases, etc. it's not reasonable to say they were aiming at defrauding the backers from the start.


The problem is they were way on over their heads with how ambitious the project was. Not only were they trying to make the first PC handheld with decent performance for videogames ever, they were also embedding the Steam Controller instead of a regular gamepad, and they were trying to make it fully modular (which is something we still don't have almost 10 years later).

They partnered with another Spanish startup company called Rhomb.IO that was designing modular PCBs for them to be able to easily switch the SoC. Partnering with another startup with no industrial experience obviously brought the risk way up, and 2 years into the project Rhomb.IO quit the project, forcing SmachZ to design the PCBs from scratch by themselves. And instead of backing down on the modularity promises, they still insisted it would be modular which meant spending a ton of time and money trying to make that work. So much time went by that Zen SoCs were starting to arrive to the market so they pivoted into those instead (they'd be dead in the water with the original SoC with a Bulldozer CPU). And then AMD took their own sweet time before sending them those Zen+ SoCs which delayed the whole thing even further.

At some point their main investor pulled all the funding so they went down.



So did the Steam MACHine Zero creators get rich quick by defrauding their kickstarter backers? LOL no, they got like 250k€ from kickstarter which obviously doesn't even pay the salaries of at least 8 engineers that worked on the project for 5+ years. Had them been releasing only pretty pictures and powerpoints we could believe that, but they had working prototypes being sent to reviewers across the ocean. Any US company would have spent millions on that project alone.

Were they way too ambitious and not competent enough for their own good? Yes, they were. They should've started much simpler like Valve did with the Steam Deck. They clearly focused way too much on making Minimum Viable Products instead of industrialization and assembly, and proof of that was the fact that they



Still, at least they successfully planted the seeds for the Steam Deck to happen, as well as all the GPD and OneX devices that preceded it. And now there's this whole expanding market of handheld PCs to thank them for.
 

Systemshock2023

Veteran
8 May 2023
2,427
1,973
I think one hidden cost to consider is switching costs. I saw a PS5 digital for around 400 EUR 360 EUR tax free. That's dirt cheap price performance wise compared to PCs today.

But depending where do you game it can be a steal or not. For my friends that have PS4 it would be an absolute bargain: keep all your library, enhance many of those games, and get around 100/150 EUR for your used PS4.

But for me, since I play on PC it would mean building a library from scratch, plus online fees. It is still cheap HW wise though.

Spencer was right when he said xbox lost the worst generation to lose. Even if they knock it out of the park with the Xbox Series XXX and every single exclusive is half life/ocarina of time level, how the heck do you lure a long time PS/Steam player to Xbox? At most you can get someone to buy it as a secondary console, but you know he won't be spending big bucks on your ecosystem.
 
  • brain
Reactions: laynelane

laynelane

Veteran
14 Jul 2022
1,019
2,110
I think one hidden cost to consider is switching costs. I saw a PS5 digital for around 400 EUR 360 EUR tax free. That's dirt cheap price performance wise compared to PCs today.

But depending where do you game it can be a steal or not. For my friends that have PS4 it would be an absolute bargain: keep all your library, enhance many of those games, and get around 100/150 EUR for your used PS4.

But for me, since I play on PC it would mean building a library from scratch, plus online fees. It is still cheap HW wise though.

Spencer was right when he said xbox lost the worst generation to lose. Even if they knock it out of the park with the Xbox Series XXX and every single exclusive is half life/ocarina of time level, how the heck do you lure a long time PS/Steam player to Xbox? At most you can get someone to buy it as a secondary console, but you know he won't be spending big bucks on your ecosystem.

I don't think there's any way to lure PC players to Xbox. Day 1 releases on PC gives access to their games, after all. Not to mention all the other benefits to the PC platform. As for what Phil said - I've often wondered why he didn't try. There has to be some capability to consistently put out great games with all the developers they have, but it seems to have never been the priority. I remember when there was a lot of rumbling about a lack of exclusives from Xbox fans and his solution was to launch the Xbox One X - "the world's most powerful console". Sure, it gave bragging rights but it didn't address what fans were actually asking for.

Maybe releasing great games won't make that much of a difference, but I have doubts about that. So many people jumped ship from Xbox upon the Xbone reveal. Others are doing so right now too - leaving behind their libraries and friends' lists. It just seems like there is this stubborn determination to focus on everything but games with Phil - services, hardware, Cloud, etc. This isn't to say that there have been no great games from Xbox at all, but they almost seem like a happy accident at this point.