Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Games Industry International)   Sorry, console fanboys, but no next-gen console will ever out compete a high-end PC again. Truth to the left; Denial to the right   ( gamesindustry.biz) divider line
    More: Obvious, system console, Crytek, non-disclosure agreement, denials, console wars, Eurogamer  
•       •       •

6590 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Feb 2013 at 9:30 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-24 01:46:42 AM  

bbfreak: Mr. Fuzzypaws: I'd rather wait 10 minutes for a game to install on my Playstation then spend an hour tracking down drivers. At least I can do it unattended and do something productive while I wait, like whack off or something.

Drivers? You're still using Windows XP aren't you?!


XP? I never had any major driver issues with XP unless I was tinkering with video card drivers that were still in beta. Sounds more like window 98 to me.
 
2013-02-24 01:51:47 AM  

aurorous: I have friends still running core 2 quad Q6600 cpu's with Geforce 8800 video cards and they still do a decent job on anything except top tier shooters.


I had a Monster GeForce 8800 GTS for years because it was the first card that supported DirectX 10.  It was a fantastic card - took everything you could throw at it and never crashed the system.  It also kept nVidia working on SLI at the time, so you could really go balls out on some systems.

Then ATI came along with their stupid Eyefinity and that became the new benchmark, then nVidia came out with 3D, and so on, and so on.  I'm OK with two old 5870s in crossfire running a three monitor Eyefinity desktop.  I figure I'll upgrade in another two years, at which point my PC is going to be 6 years old.

I was looking at FTL, is it really that good?  It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.
 
2013-02-24 02:06:31 AM  
Consoles are for people with real life friends.

PC games are for people with internet friends.
 
2013-02-24 02:12:32 AM  

clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.


His quote was a ridiculous "both sides of the fence" statement. A GPU that outperforms a PS4 costs less than $200. A CPU that outperforms PS4 costs less than that. You can build a PC that outperforms PS4 handily for less than $600 if you already have a monitor, and it will be more useful than that PS4. And the NextBox is going to be much less powerful than the PS4, from leaked reports on its GPU. So there's that.

Here's a visual example of what the difference will be on PC versus PS4:
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/unreal-engine-4-not-as-impressive-on-p s4 -as-on-pc-comparison-between-elemental-pc-ps4-demos/

Right now that may not seem like much, however specs on PCs improve over time. Unfortunately, in a closed console like the PS3-PS4-360-Wii U, the hardware will never improve. In a PC, you pop open the case and plug in a new video card.

I'm sure there will be cries of "it's so hard and inconvenient". Well, having done it for 15 years, I can tell you it really isn't that difficult, and many people who start out intimidated quickly become acclimated to it. It's no more difficult than playing legos or putting together Ikea furniture.

PS4 will be a fine little machine, as the Wii U is, as the 720 probably will be (all the bad rumors about used games notwithstanding), however a PC is more versatile, more powerful, and a better price-value proposition.
 
2013-02-24 02:21:15 AM  
img259.imageshack.us

^ The reason PC gaming is better has nothing to do with hardware speed.
 
2013-02-24 02:23:47 AM  

natmar_76: clancifer: "Yerli said what could be packed into a $2,000 or $3,000 high-end PC should have no trouble besting what Sony or Microsoft put into a mass market machine with a more consumer-friendly price point."

Yeah, fark that.  I'll stick with my 360.

His quote was a ridiculous "both sides of the fence" statement. A GPU that outperforms a PS4 costs less than $200. A CPU that outperforms PS4 costs less than that. You can build a PC that outperforms PS4 handily for less than $600 if you already have a monitor, and it will be more useful than that PS4. And the NextBox is going to be much less powerful than the PS4, from leaked reports on its GPU. So there's that.

Here's a visual example of what the difference will be on PC versus PS4:
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/unreal-engine-4-not-as-impressive-on-p s4 -as-on-pc-comparison-between-elemental-pc-ps4-demos/

Right now that may not seem like much, however specs on PCs improve over time. Unfortunately, in a closed console like the PS3-PS4-360-Wii U, the hardware will never improve. In a PC, you pop open the case and plug in a new video card.

I'm sure there will be cries of "it's so hard and inconvenient". Well, having done it for 15 years, I can tell you it really isn't that difficult, and many people who start out intimidated quickly become acclimated to it. It's no more difficult than playing legos or putting together Ikea furniture.

PS4 will be a fine little machine, as the Wii U is, as the 720 probably will be (all the bad rumors about used games notwithstanding), however a PC is more versatile, more powerful, and a better price-value proposition.


I actually question that, in terms of price to performance in games.  A console for $399, for example, with ps4 levels of power woudl actually be pretty hard to beat at the same resolutions, for the same money, on a PC.

This is always been due to consoles ability to optimize to hell and back in games.

Granted, you could probably beat the performance with a 6-700 PC, all round, but that's a significant investment over a console.  It's not as well optimize for the living room ether.

And I say that as someone typing this from 1000+ gaming PC.
 
2013-02-24 02:32:08 AM  

Fubini: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Hell, the machine I'm using right now specs about even with what they debuted for the PS4 this week, save for the GDDR5.

Your average user is not going to hit a bottleneck with DDR3 memory for non-graphics computing tasks, and there's DDR4 available if you really, really need it.

Nice and mid-range PC video cards already use GDDR5, except it's dedicated, so the console still looses this round. I'm not a computer architecture wizard, but my gut instinct is that dedicated DDR3 system and dedicated GDDR5 graphics is better than shared GDDR5 system/graphics. It also means that a nice PC is going to have at least 8GB of system memory and 1-2GB of graphics memory, so a nice current generation PC is in actuality going to have 9-10GB of total memory, and you're going to have a dedicated bus for each.

We don't know the PS4/720 architecture yet, but I'd hate to think that my network stack, OS calls, and just plain application code will have to compete with the graphics card for memory bandwidth. Though really I'd assume they'll have some kind of smart DMA controller or memory segmentation to get around this.


Actually, there is a lot of utility to unified memory, if done right, in terms of game performance.  Since the ps4 has an APU, with the CPU and GPU on the same die, having a large poor of shared memory it can device as the game developer sees fit is actually pretty powerful.

APU performance on the pc is pretty iffy, because developers really don't have any optimization for it, nor a real reason to when split ddr/gddr and split cpu/gpu setups are the norm.

Unified works well on a console though.  The Xbox and 360 both had it, iirc, as does the wii U iirc.  Sony used split pools for the ps3 and it really hurt them by the end of the generation.
 
2013-02-24 02:52:23 AM  

GAT_00: I've got 1100W in mine.


What the hell are you running to need 1100W?  Dual Nv690s in SLI?

I have a Core i7 930 Bloomfield with an X58 mainboard, 12GB of DDR3 memory, Nv 560Ti video, one SDD and one spinner all running off of a 380W Seasonic supply.  I can even do a 10% overclock of both the CPU and GPU without stability issues.


Ghastly: The advantage of the console over the PC is that you know for the 5 year lifespan of that generation of console you will be able to run the games for that console.


That is a significant benefit of a console.  But I've never had a gaming PC experience the level of obsolescence as quickly as you've described.  Maybe 18 months for a video card, 36 months for the rest of the system.  Surprisingly, I expect to hang onto my Core i7 for another 2 years (5 total) before I look to replace it.  I don't expect the 560Ti to last as long, though.
 
2013-02-24 03:10:01 AM  

Dinjiin: What the hell are you running to need 1100W?  Dual Nv690s in SLI?

I have a Core i7 930 Bloomfield with an X58 mainboard, 12GB of DDR3 memory, Nv 560Ti video, one SDD and one spinner all running off of a 380W Seasonic supply.  I can even do a 10% overclock of both the CPU and GPU without stability issues.


I doubt most people need or could even use 1100 Watts, especially since video cards are using less power while increasing performance.  I have a Bloomfield i7 975, x58, and while it's not a power saving chip, it can draw at most 130 Watts.  Two ATI 5870s can draw 188 Watts max.  Hard drives are drawing less than 12 watts each at full use, and I have six of them.  Throw in a random 100 watts for the motherboard, fans, and cooling system.  So total, for a machine that isn't energy economical, is about 678 watts at full power.  The machine came with a 1000 Watt power supply, but I've never used it all.

The only time I've seen a huge power supply get taxed was in a system a coworker built that used Peltier cooling units attached to water pumps and a radiator.  He couldn't get it to work with less than 1200 Watts, but he added a second PSU simply for cooling so he could overclock without worrying about running out of juice.
 
2013-02-24 03:15:32 AM  

fusillade762: Fubini: FTL

I'm convinced that's a troll game. Got my ass handed to me every time I got to the 2nd boss fight. On EASY. I had to uninstall it because I was concerned I was going to start breaking shiat.
Also another game I can't imagine trying to play with a console controller.


The boss is definitely beatable.  But like any games of that particular style, there is at least SOME measure of sheer luck involved.


Lsherm: I was looking at FTL, is it really that good? It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.


It is simplistic, but I found it entertaining.  Not for a super long time, mind you, but it was at least worth the money.  If you enjoy Roguelikes, anyway, you could try it.  Not like it breaks the bank.
 
2013-02-24 03:18:09 AM  
Try running any kind of flight sim on a console. You can't. You can't use TrackIR, multiple input devices such as pedals, yoke, and stick. Try playing DCS A-10C on a console. There is simply no way it can be done.

/I miss the days of Counterstike when I could easily build and run my own server and mods, and CONTROL who want to play on my server.
//No 10 yr old punk saying how he wants to fark your mom....
 
2013-02-24 03:43:06 AM  

Antimatter: I actually question that, in terms of price to performance in games.  A console for $399, for example, with ps4 levels of power woudl actually be pretty hard to beat at the same resolutions, for the same money, on a PC.

This is always been due to consoles ability to optimize to hell and back in games.

Granted, you could probably beat the performance with a ...


The cost of a PC to do what PS4 will do, not including monitor, is not expensive. A 1.8 TFLOP GPU, a CPU that is not anywhere as powerful as an i5, a motherboard, 8gb RAM. Some extra cost would have to be given due to the 8gb of GDDR 5 ram and a power supply, however you're looking at not much more than $450. Unlike the PS3 and the 360, the PS4 and the 720 are not packing cutting edge hardware. For instance, the PS4 sports an A10 variant AMD mobile CPU, which is a very light affordable chip.

And the PC is far more versatile. It is an open system. It is repairable and upgradable.

"Console efficiency" is also not what it used to be. If you watched Sony's presentation they flat out call PS4 a mini PC. And that's what it is in architecture. It uses an x86 processor. It uses a standard DX11 GPU. Except for its memory architecture, it is just a PC. Once upon a time, when consoles were very customized hardware like back in the SNES days, console efficiency was true. Nowadays, not so much. Yes, the PS4's RAM architecture is nice, however it's not going to allow a 1.8 TFLOP GPU to outperform even a 2.3 TFLOP Ati 6950, high end a couple of years ago.

Microsoft's NextBox is going to be even weaker than that, with a 1.2 TFLOP GPU. Wii U's is a 0.4 TFLOP GPU, though it may perform above that spec due to faster fixed function pathways for processing such as lighting.

What gamers should be looking at is not the hardware. Well, they should be looking at hardware, because it's always good to be informed of facts, but they shouldn't be expecting a repeat of the 360, which was bleeding edge even in comparison to PC at the time (PS3 was not, its GPU was overpriced and its CPU a boondoggle). That's not the business environment we're in today. Microsoft and Sony lost billions on 360 and PS3. That's one of the reasons they delayed the release of their new consoles: PS3 and 360 were still selling, and selling at $150+ profit per hardware sold, these last couple of years. Today is a tougher environment and they're not going to sell loss leaders. In fact, Microsoft seems to be positioning its next system as more a home multimedia center than a game machine.

No, what gamers should be look is the software. Get the system that has the games you want from a company with consumer friendly business practices. It's as simple as that.
 
2013-02-24 04:05:26 AM  

fusillade762: dillenger69: If they'd let me use mouse+keyboard on a console game I'd still switch in a heartbeat. My hate for console controllers is pretty much what keeps me in the PC sphere.

This right here. Absolutely cannot play any FPS with a console controller.


Before I got my new pc I had only played FPS games with a controller. The difference in keyboard+mouse and a controller was amazing the first time I played TF2 on my computer.

Anyways as for a console I have no interest in buying the current gen consoles or the next gen ones. They're just too expensive compared to the cost of upgrades for my pc.
 
2013-02-24 04:18:23 AM  

Lsherm: aurorous: I have friends still running core 2 quad Q6600 cpu's with Geforce 8800 video cards and they still do a decent job on anything except top tier shooters.

I had a Monster GeForce 8800 GTS for years because it was the first card that supported DirectX 10.  It was a fantastic card - took everything you could throw at it and never crashed the system.  It also kept nVidia working on SLI at the time, so you could really go balls out on some systems.

Then ATI came along with their stupid Eyefinity and that became the new benchmark, then nVidia came out with 3D, and so on, and so on.  I'm OK with two old 5870s in crossfire running a three monitor Eyefinity desktop.  I figure I'll upgrade in another two years, at which point my PC is going to be 6 years old.

I was looking at FTL, is it really that good?  It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.


You'll definitely get your value out of it for 5-10 dollars. That said, some people seem to love it, others seem to hate it. Definitely a fun little diversion, and definitely a tactical/strategic game.
 
2013-02-24 04:28:08 AM  
Yuri Futanari : For gaming the KB/M still works great, I have no problems with precision in FPS games thanks to the low/wide couch armrests, and for other stuff I can use the wireless 360 controller if I want.

Remember the Phantom gaming console (I still have one of their E3 t-shirts around here somewhere).

The console itself was basically vaporware, but back in my PC days, I always thought of rolling the PC out to hook it up to the 51" TV (To put things into context, LCD monitors weren't prevalent yet, and if you had a 20" CRT you were ballin.).

Anyway, my idea was to use one of their lapboards (which they actually got to market) but heard that the wireless sucked.

www.wired.com


I actually got to play with one for a few minutes at an E3 long past, the physical design of it worked so well that I'm certain it had to have been farmed out to some other company because I don't see how a smart design like that could have come out of the epic fail that was the Phantom.
 
2013-02-24 04:31:37 AM  

pnjunction: Hah always one of these failtrolls in these threads.


How was I trolling? Trolls are made just to get a rise, I stated my opinion. Just like I think GTA4 is a shiatty game, but people seem to think that's a troll, too.

meh
 
2013-02-24 04:37:08 AM  

Relatively Obscure: fusillade762: Fubini: FTL

I'm convinced that's a troll game. Got my ass handed to me every time I got to the 2nd boss fight. On EASY. I had to uninstall it because I was concerned I was going to start breaking shiat.
Also another game I can't imagine trying to play with a console controller.

The boss is definitely beatable.  But like any games of that particular style, there is at least SOME measure of sheer luck involved.


Lsherm: I was looking at FTL, is it really that good? It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.

It is simplistic, but I found it entertaining.  Not for a super long time, mind you, but it was at least worth the money.  If you enjoy Roguelikes, anyway, you could try it.  Not like it breaks the bank.


I thought there was a decent level of strategic and tactical depth to the game... I found the seat-of-the-pants aspect the most entertaining. Each run you get a pretty limited selection of crew and equipment that you can choose from, and you kind of have to cobble together something that works with what you're given. If you set out on a game with a specific build in mind, maybe only 50% of the time would you even get close to everything you want- so you have to be pretty flexible, especially if you want to have a hope of killing the boss.

I also felt that the depth of the simulation added a lot to the game. It was a lot of fun to combo different types of attacks to multiply the effectiveness, like forcing your enemies into fire-filled rooms full of your own fire-immune crew members, or tactically decompressing your enemies ship, or tactically decompressing your own ship.
 
2013-02-24 04:50:04 AM  
If you are reading this, no matter your opinion, you are wasting your life.
 
2013-02-24 04:56:21 AM  

MrEricSir: [img259.imageshack.us image 425x362]

^ The reason PC gaming is better has nothing to do with hardware speed.


A mouse. How quaint.
 
2013-02-24 05:29:23 AM  
Coming from the developers of Crysis 3... an FPS game. A type of game of which there are so many that it becomes difficult to even distinguish them apart. Make it as pretty you want, it's an FPS game, those are a dime a damn dozen.

Tell you what Crysis 3 making tool... You admit that your game is about as original and innovative as a comic book character losing their parents and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.
 
2013-02-24 05:40:45 AM  

Fubini: I just built a very nice gaming PC during the black Friday season for about $1000, and it's
-snip-
DCS A10-C - $20 - not available
-snip-


In case you didn't know, DCS moved everything over to DCS World. I think that you need to make sure that you have run the Steam version at least once. Just install DCS World and then look under the modules section for the files for A10-C. They also throw in the Su-25T for free to fly as well. You can uninstall the steam version to save on disk space after you move to world.
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?scr=product&ProductI d= 21&end_pos=137&lang=en
 
2013-02-24 05:45:11 AM  
randomjsa: and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.

But better graphics DO make better games.

Saying that better graphics doesn't make a game better is a lie, the question is though, how much better.

It's a case of diminishing returns, and graphics is just one part of the multitude of things that go into an awesome game. A big enough deficit in any number of areas will kill a game flat out for some people.

// Is your music so crappy and grating that people stab their eardrums with chopsticks to make the pain end?
Do your graphics look like viewed through a pair of sandblasted sunglasses?
Does your AI cheat like a robber baron cheats on his taxes.
Does your control scheme cause people to summon demons as a side effect of the finger movements you put them through?
 
2013-02-24 05:47:15 AM  

randomjsa: Coming from the developers of Crysis 3... an FPS game. A type of game of which there are so many that it becomes difficult to even distinguish them apart. Make it as pretty you want, it's an FPS game, those are a dime a damn dozen.

Tell you what Crysis 3 making tool... You admit that your game is about as original and innovative as a comic book character losing their parents and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.


Depends on how you do it.  The Crysis people are making an engine like the Unreal or Half Life engines.  Doom 3 was just an engine demo, but a shiatty game.  ID Software is losing the battle because the Doom3 engine wasn't used in enough games.

Dishonered was built on the Unreal 3 engine, and it was a great game.  Far Cry 3 is based off a modified Crytek engine, and it's a great game.  Both are FPS.  The upcoming Bioshock Infinite is based off a modified Unreal 3 engine.

There are great FPS's out there for consoles and PC's.
 
2013-02-24 05:54:16 AM  
I've seen a lot of misinformation in this thread.

I bought a PC in June 2008 that was slightly above average, but not a "high-end" PC. Including the video card, I spent about 1k on it. Late last year marked the first time that I could not purchase a game because my computer didn't meet the minimum specs (War of the Roses requires a stronger graphics card). There is no "hunting down drivers" or messing with files to get things working. I download from Steam just as quickly as somebody downloads from PSN, and jump right into the game. So, the computer went 4 years running any game that I wanted perfectly, and it can still play almost any game.

In the mean time, I very often get games for ~$10 on the PC, where console games stick around $50 at all times, unless you buy used, and then you have to worry about the disk being scratched or messed up in some way. No such trouble with digital downloads.

And for the price, $1,000 is not crazy expensive compared to the $400 for consoles, given that my computer is used for a lot more than gaming. Factor in the cheaper game prices, and it works out to about the same price in the long run, so the price isn't even the issue. So, like I said, a lot of misinformation around here.
 
2013-02-24 06:10:39 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Anybody that uses fanboy or the even dumber alternate spelling deserves an ass whipping in a gravel parking lot.


That will never happen. Fanboys are pussies.
 
2013-02-24 06:37:12 AM  

Lsherm: I was looking at FTL, is it really that good?  It looked a little simplistic in the Steam store.


It is that good. And it is simplistic.
 
2013-02-24 06:37:40 AM  

randomjsa: Tell you what Crysis 3 making tool... You admit that your game is about as original and innovative as a comic book character losing their parents and I'll admit that better graphics don't make better games.


They make the game to sell the engine for other companies to make innovative (and better looking) games.
How good their game looks is currently held back by eight year old hardware.

Fact of the matter is that personal computers evolve faster, giving you more power to build on.
...But consoles sell better, giving you more money to make games with.

So the result is you get A list titles on old chips VS new hardware with the best innovations.

I think the near future will be decided by who does download content best and how Rift and Valve hardware pan out.
If all three factors start coming to fruition, how we buy and play games is going to change drastically.
 
2013-02-24 06:55:07 AM  

Without Fail: Peter von Nostrand: Anybody that uses fanboy or the even dumber alternate spelling deserves an ass whipping in a gravel parking lot.

That will never happen. Fanboys are pussies.


They might not have a choice. Quite often people will talk in person like they do on the internet. By then it might be too late.
 
2013-02-24 07:15:14 AM  

bob_ross: The problem being price for one show me a $299 PC that can run a game that looks as good as the PS3 version.  And two, developers know exact hardware they are developing for 100% of the time, they can optimize coding.

Besides PC games aren't really fun or innovative most of the time.  OOHHH ANOTHER FPS!!! YEAH!! *yawn*


wow what a troll post, couldn't be more opposite from the truth, as far as $60 retail games go the vast majority of good ps3/360 games this past generation were shooters, compared to the xbox/ps2 generation it was really really stale and old and one of the many reasons i got back into wii/pc

as for console vs. pc, obviously this will be the case regardless of price too simply because the manufacturers are limited by profitability, simplicity, wattage & cooling

ie: the wii u's cpu is likely underclocked to limit the amount of wattage and cooling needed, so you get a console that's a little more capable than a ps3/360 largely due to more modern components but doesn't bridge that gap as well because they limited power consumption so the thing wouldn't overheat like launch ps3/360's did en masse

there's also general architecture, ps4 using gddr5 for system ram is already a hinderence for cpu tasks even if the architecture is simpler to code for

and then there's the general advancement/progress of technology, ddr4 will start being available next year for system ram and better graphics cards are always on the way, the only limiting factor for a pc is wattage which is why gaming pc's are commonly atx towers so you can fit a powerful enough power supply
 
2013-02-24 07:16:48 AM  

traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]


I don't have that because my desk is big and mousepad sits far away from the edge.

But.. My Allsop Redmond mouse pad I bought over 5 years ago has its own badge of PC Master Race glory.  That was once a shiny metal finish.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-24 07:20:07 AM  
www.cameronnewland.com

Bow before me console gamer scum.
 
2013-02-24 07:42:42 AM  

styckx: traylor: [www.mopo.ca image 502x361]

I don't have that because my desk is big and mousepad sits far away from the edge.

But.. My Allsop Redmond mouse pad I bought over 5 years ago has its own badge of PC Master Race glory.  That was once a shiny metal finish.


I keep my keyboard in my lap and mouse/pad on the arm of my recliner. It's home.
 
2013-02-24 08:05:15 AM  
PC gamer here. I'm happy to co-exist with console gamers. But somebody needs to remind game developers that we still exist.

Damnit, I still want RDR for PC! Til then, Rockstar can kiss my white ass.
 
2013-02-24 08:32:26 AM  
I don't understand these little wars. I like games. Console games, PC games, tabletop games, board games, even phone games. Can't we all just play along?
 
2013-02-24 08:34:12 AM  
See, PC gamers drive like THIS, but console gamers drive like THIS.

Got my gaming start on consoles but Steam got me back into the PC fold. Part of that though is that for work reasons I have a pretty beefy rig at home that wasn't intended for gaming, but it can run most modern stuff. I've never bothered to have a PC above the $400 off-the-shelf WalMart Dells before this because I never did much with them beyond coding and browsing and media, part of that is because I don't like trying to untangle all the different processors and graphics cards and mobos and ask for advice on various sites and check specs and alternate rigs and getting the best stuff from "last year"... I know that's playtime for a lot of folks but it sort of stresses me out and then I always still feel like I overpaid.

I think I'll still go with console for primary, PC for auxiliary. But every platform has exclusives worth mentioning.
 
2013-02-24 08:34:43 AM  
As a mainly PC gamer one thing I like about consoles being the primary target for developers is it has leveled off increasing system requirements. A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.
 
2013-02-24 08:39:51 AM  
Signs a person hasn't played games on a PC in about a decade. They say things like:

Yea, but your graphics card is out of date every year! Have fun upgrading!!
I don't want to search for drivers. I want to just put the game in and play!
I'd rather spend $200 for a console than $2000 for a PC!
Whatever I want to play watching the games on my TV instead of my tiny monitor!
I hate using a mouse and keyboard for games


None of these things have been true for 5-10 years but some people can't admit it.
 
2013-02-24 09:08:40 AM  

Carth: Signs a person hasn't played games on a PC in about a decade. They say things like:

Yea, but your graphics card is out of date every year! Have fun upgrading!!
I don't want to search for drivers. I want to just put the game in and play!
I'd rather spend $200 for a console than $2000 for a PC!
Whatever I want to play watching the games on my TV instead of my tiny monitor!
I hate using a mouse and keyboard for games


None of these things have been true for 5-10 years but some people can't admit it.


^ So much this
 
2013-02-24 09:10:37 AM  

bob_ross: The problem being price for one show me a $299 PC that can run a game that looks as good as the PS3 version.  And two, developers know exact hardware they are developing for 100% of the time, they can optimize coding.

Besides PC games aren't really fun or innovative most of the time.  OOHHH ANOTHER FPS!!! YEAH!! *yawn*


1. Developers don't have to know. That's what all that shiat like DirectX is all about. You develop against DirectX and that abstracts the hardware layer. It works very well. And I'm pretty sure that even with PS3, you code against libraries, because you can bet that Sony like to keep their options open about swapping out bits of hardware.

2. You are joking. The great thing about PC gaming is that you have people still making weird games because the barriers to entry are low and the freedom is high. Want to make a PS3 game? First, you need to hand Sony $2000 for the SDK, jump through a bunch of legal hurdles, then you either need to manufacture it as a game, or trust that Sony allow it onto the PSN. What does World of Goo run on? What does Minecraft run on?
 
2013-02-24 09:14:37 AM  

jake_lex: Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.

This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.


They are not talking about people who buy there PC's at walmart.  They are talking about people who take the time to know what they are getting beforehand.  If you didnt know what kind of video card you had before opening the box, you fall into the first group, and frankly should have a console system instead.
 
2013-02-24 09:18:38 AM  
Fubini:
Terraria - $3 - 151hrs (secret shame)
There is no shame in that my brother.  It is a glorious little game, I bought it when it came out, put about the same time into it, and recently reinstalled it so i can beat the new content.
 
2013-02-24 09:19:20 AM  
$900 PC I bought just over a year ago runs Skyrim on ultra with HD textures, I can't imagine anything coming out that's going to push those limits any time soon.

I like my xbox too, though.  Just not for certain games.
 
2013-02-24 09:25:53 AM  

Arthen: If you are reading this, no matter your opinion, you are wasting your life.


Hey now!

I'm drunk and wasting my life, TYVM.

/rum: Sunday brunch of champions
 
2013-02-24 09:27:03 AM  

d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net


Consoles:
* No need for constant expensive upgrades
* Integrated hardware between CPU and video tends to be faster than even some high-range PCs for the first few years
* Even at the end of its life, a modern console still has killer graphics and sound, almost on par with the latest PC graphics (ie: latest Devil May Cry vs. Crysis 3)
* Comes with dual stick controller, which just works better for some games (third person, puzzle, action)
* Less occurrence of cheating
* No driver bullshiat or configuration required
* Consoles are just more popular than PC gaming, so the community is larger

PC Gaming:
* Capable of being at the top of the graphics food chain
* Comes with mouse/keyboard, which just works better for some games (FPS, complex strategy, MMO, flight sims)
* More customizability and access to mods
* Steam tends to be on top of the market value for PC gaming (though, consoles will wise up soon enough)
* Many games start out as PC games, so there's a greater access to some types of games (esp indies)
* Greater access to where you can play them (laptops in the car, for example)

Why argue? Why have this war? Everybody should know these points and just acknowledge that both have their pros and cons. I play games on both. I also play games on my phone, which is absent in this debate. Or my NDS.
 
2013-02-24 09:54:11 AM  
The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.
 
2013-02-24 10:34:19 AM  

dyhchong: GAT_00: I'll say what I said last time we did this: PC markets will never die because games like Crusader Kings will never work on consoles, and there's plenty of market for grand strategy games.

Relatively Obscure: JUST got my first PC that could qualify as high..ish.. end. It's lovely, but the price tag was not.

Did you buy it assembled or build it yourself?  I have an 8GB RAM system, 1GB GeForce 460 SE card, and a 6 core, 3.2GB processor.  Admittedly the RAM is a bit slower, I think it's 1333 RAM, but I still only spent 1K on all that.

Stop, just stop.

Anyway, for Console Gamers, do you also own a PC? How much did you pay for that? Add that cost to your console because you still own a PC regardless.

For me, I stay just behind the curve and thus pay almost nothing. My HD 6870 is still going strong, plays everything new at 1080 on high settings, and I got it for $180(NZD, about 130/140USD) two years ago. Coupled with a 2500K.

I have it attached to dual monitors on a desk, which wraps around through HDMI to a 50" 1920x1080 screen facing the couch, where I have an Xbox 360 wireless controller dongle hidden. I don't have to search for Drivers. Software doesn't use drivers. And if I do add new hardware, Windows automatically finds the drivers for me unless I want the latest GPU drivers (which I'm too lazy to install, yet still don't have any issues with games).

I have Steam installed, where I pay a pittance for games, especially during a sale and everything just works whilst keeping itself updated.

I can play every common/uncommon file format. I can centralise all my data and access with ease. I can also do my work on this computer.


You mean you have... a general-purpose computing device?

i21.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-24 10:44:51 AM  

abadabba: A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.


I can vouch for that.  Although I'm running a core 2 duo, not a quad.  At the time very few games were optimized to take advantage of four cores and I couldn't justify the extra expense with my budget.  If I'd gone for a quad core I wouldn't have been able to afford my overclocked 8800GT, which is still running like a champ.  I think I made the right call there.

In fact I can play most new games on medium settings, although I haven't tried Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 yet.  Only game I can remember having to really dial the settings down for was LA Noire, but that could just be Rockstar doing a half-ass job optimizing the PC port - again.

Nemo's Brother: The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.


Worst troll attempt ever.

-3/10
/that's right, it was so bad you've had points taken away.
//I imagine you're in the red now
 
2013-02-24 10:44:59 AM  

Frothy Panties: /I miss the days of Counterstike when I could easily build and run my own server and mods, and CONTROL who want to play on my server.




I still play CoD4 for that reason.
 
2013-02-24 11:05:31 AM  

SwingDancer: jake_lex: Shostie: I don't think anyone who buys a console wants it to out-perform a PC. They just want a machine they can play games on without a whole lot of hassle.

This.  I don't want to buy a game, get it home, and discover my computer's video card is out of date after I've opened the box, thus making it impossible for me to return the software.

They are not talking about people who buy there PC's at walmart.  They are talking about people who take the time to know what they are getting beforehand.  If you didnt know what kind of video card you had before opening the box, you fall into the first group, and frankly should have a console system instead.


personally i hope the desktop PC evolves hardware-wise to the point where the CPU is just a rack of plug-in components, got a new CPU? plug it in and go, got a new GPU? same, there's very little that stands in the way of the component-based desktop PC from being the dominant desktop except that most people are scared to open their CPU and plug in wires or unscrew things
 
2013-02-24 11:06:27 AM  

Neondistraction: abadabba: A 6 year old core 2 quad and an 8800GT can still run many of todays games at reduced settings.

I can vouch for that.  Although I'm running a core 2 duo, not a quad.  At the time very few games were optimized to take advantage of four cores and I couldn't justify the extra expense with my budget.  If I'd gone for a quad core I wouldn't have been able to afford my overclocked 8800GT, which is still running like a champ.  I think I made the right call there.

In fact I can play most new games on medium settings, although I haven't tried Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 yet.  Only game I can remember having to really dial the settings down for was LA Noire, but that could just be Rockstar doing a half-ass job optimizing the PC port - again.

Nemo's Brother: The PC is dying. Tablets and smartphones reign supreme.  You PC retards are going to push the App Game revolution. You must be proud.

Worst troll attempt ever.

-3/10
/that's right, it was so bad you've had points taken away.
//I imagine you're in the red now


Funny, my 7-year old console has no problem playing LA Noire.

Old PCs are great if you don't want to play the most recent games? That would be like buying a PS3 lite and knowing no game made after 2010 would work.YAY!

/go back to your space marines and angry birds
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report