@sazrocks I disagree. Gaming laptops usually have the best performance per dollar and if you can put up with the accent colors (they’re actually starting to tone that down), it can mean the difference between a dual core and a 1050ti and a quad core with a 1060. Sure, it’s not going to be made out of a solid chunk of aluminum, but does it really need to? One thing I will give you is battery, for a gaming laptop with a good battery you’re looking at 4 hrs of battery, whereas with that dual core+1050ti laptop you’re more likely to get 6-8hrs out of it.
I should have clarified properly:
The value is terrible for usage either as an actual portable device (big and heavy with poor battery life) or as a device for gaming/graphics processing (compare to desktops). If you must have both at the same time, then you don't have many other options, but most people won't benefit from anything better than integrated graphics anyway.
What I was trying to say was that long-term reliability is more questionable on gaming laptops than properly engineered business-focused laptops. Most obviously, the extra heat will take its toll on the components over time. Additionally, overclocking can prevent capacitors from fully discharging during operation, which greatly reduces the lifespan of the motherboard. Finally, gaming laptops simply aren't optimized for reliability; they're optimized for performance.
In any case, this debate is quickly derailing this thread. I don't think anyone would reasonably claim that a gaming laptop would make a good budget VEX programming laptop. The extra cores and discrete graphics would be wasted. You would have to program at the charging station lest your battery die. You would have to carry a bulky device around to do last-minute programming in queue or at the field.