Patrick Bach, from DICE, the developers of the Battlefield series, certainly knows the way to a PC gamer's heart: tell them that, for once, the PC version of a game won't be a crummy port, but will be the glorious, lead platform.

In an "interview" with Nvidia, Bach is asked - without any self interest at all, of course - by the graphics card manufacturer whether console games are holding PC games back. And Bach lets fly.

"Yes, absolutely", he says. "That's the biggest problem we have today. Most games are actually still based on the same core idea that the consoles are your focus, the superior platform or something. I don't know why. That was the truth 5 years ago, but the world has moved on."

"PCs are way more powerful than the consoles today and there are actually almost zero games out there that actually use the benefits of this. So for our target of what we want to hit, we are now using the more powerful platform to try and prove what we see gaming being in the future rather than using the lowest common denominator, instead of developing it for the consoles and then just adding higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for the PC version."

"We're [doing] it the other way around, we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with and then scale it back to the consoles."

That'll sound a little snooty to console owners, but then, for once they can take a back seat. PC owners have been getting the shaft for years now when it comes to ports of major console games, whether it be poor customisation options, a lack of DLC, delayed release dates or no release dates at all. And all that on a machine which can generally run rings around a PS3 or 360.

It's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once, even if it is only one shoe on one person for one game.

Melissia wrote:You still have to pay MS and Sony to publish on the consoles. You don't have to do that to publish on the PC market, making the PC market better for indy gamers. It's more expensive and time consuming to release games, to patch games, or to provide new content for games on consoles than PCs.

If only games developers realise that graphics and "how many shards and flames we can fit on screen from each explosion" is actually not all that draws people to a game, but they come (and stay) for the story, how the game plays, the multiplayer support and experience, etc...

But yeah PC is probably better for the small devs but only slightly so I would imagine.

The current generation of consoles were using technology that was old in 2006.

It's 2011 now and that still hasn't changed.

You can't develop better graphics, larger environments, or smarter AI with the ancient technology that consoles use.

ShumaGorath wrote:If people came and stayed for the story and gameplay call of duty black ops wouldn't be the best selling game in history. People come for graphics and they stay for gameplay.

The story is irrelevant. Console hardware is a severe and significant limiter on both graphics and gameplay, especially with modern focus on large-scale multiplayer gaming.

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The current generation of consoles were using technology that was old in 2006.

The cell processor, blue ray, tri core AMDs and both respective graphics cards were not old in 2006. I mean, I guess they were using plastic and copper. Those are pretty old.

It's 2011 now and that still hasn't changed.

Both have undergone processor nanometer reductions and in general their hardware has become much more cost efficient, energy efficient, and heat efficient. It's changed.

You can't develop better graphics, larger environments, or smarter AI with the ancient technology that consoles use.

The article stated that the consoles were holding back PC development. Not their own.

Fafnir wrote:

You know exactly what I mean. The Cell processor and the core that the 360 used, while not themselves old technology, weren't particularly impressive when compared to the PC hardware equivalents.

Also, even though the consoles may have had some slight changes in hardware to make them more efficient in terms of cost, power, and heat, they still operate under the same limitations as the versions from 2006. That is, they're pretty weak.

Likewise, it's because everyone develops for consoles these days that PC games are held back.

You know exactly what I mean. The Cell processor and the core that the 360 used, while not themselves old technology, weren't particularly impressive when compared to the PC hardware equivalents.

Also, even though the consoles may have had some slight changes in hardware to make them more efficient in terms of cost, power, and heat, they still operate under the same limitations as the versions from 2006. That is, they're pretty weak.

Likewise, it's because everyone develops for consoles these days that PC games are held back.

Well, not even that. Not every game has to be Crysis (although I'd appreciate it if the sequel wasn't watered down to pander to the hardware limitations of consoles...) or Metro 2033, but at the very least, the games should try to take some advantage of the hardware that the PC platform offers.

It's especially painful in series that got started on the PC, and then on the move over to consoles, end up cutting out significant depth or quality in making the game more marketable.

PC versions of console games can be amazing, I mean, look at Devil May Cry 4 (Capcom, 2008) or The Last Remnant (Square Enix, 2009), both titles had absolutely amazing PC versions (it's worth noting that DMC4 isn't actually a port. It was originally developed on the PC and then ported over to consoles) that made great use of the hardware available (in the case of The Last Remnant, the PC version was a massive improvement in the quality of the game, and really showed the disparity between console and PC in terms of horsepower and developing potential).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

Fafnir wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

I was just saying that they're PC versions of games that are done very well. DMC4 looks better on the PC, and the Last Remnant is actually playable and offers many more features that were limited due to the 360's hardware limitations.

Fafnir wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

I was just saying that they're PC versions of games that are done very well. DMC4 looks better on the PC, and the Last Remnant is actually playable and offers many more features that were limited due to the 360's hardware limitations.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Every game looks better on the PC at top settings. Modern capable PCs have better hardware then their console equivalents. Once again. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THEY DON'T. Also, the last remnant seems to be pretty poorly rated in both its console and PC versions implying that the game is bad regardless of platform. It takes a lot to get below a 7 on IGN.

Slarg232 wrote:
You can play Devil May Cry 4 on the PC?

How the heck do you even control that?

It's not a matter of looking better on PC at top settings, it's optimization. Plenty of PC ports are incredibly poorly done.

And I found The Last Remnant to be a fun game on the PC. The battle system was quite innovative and fun.The story sucked and a fair bit of grinding was involved, but the core mechanics themselves were solid.

Fafnir wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:
You can play Devil May Cry 4 on the PC?

How the heck do you even control that?

...you plug in a controller. How else would you play it?

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.

You guys are bad with your money.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.

You guys are bad with your money.

Pft. I didn't buy Black Ops. I borrowed the copy that my brother, who's a multiplayer junkie and has yet to finish the campaign even on easy, owns on the 360.

Total money spent by me? $0! No pirating involved either!

Fafnir wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

1. Find and install drivers
2. Plug in PS3/360 controller into USB slot
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

1. Find and install drivers
2. Plug in PS3/360 controller into USB slot
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

And.... How the does that allow me to use the Keyboard?
[

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

I'm sure if they took your suggestions it might have sold better. If that were possible.

Gabe Newell wrote:“If you look at the customers that I feel we’ve done the worst job at taking care of is the people who bought our product on the PS3 – Orange Box on PS3. Those are the people who I have trouble saying anything to other than ‘Yeah, I’m sorry. You have legitimate beef with us.”

Requia wrote:Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good thing?

Perpetual pushes for newer shinier hardware so that developers can include more eye candy is why I dropped PC gaming in the first place. Sit down and make a new game instead of making an old game with better graphics.

asimo77 wrote:At its core I would agree with this guy, but I wouldn't say it as "forcefully" as he did. Consoles are holding the PC back but they are not holding gaming back. Also I think PC vs. Console debate can depend on the genre of a game.

asimo77 wrote:For example FPS's on consoles have become so refined that saying "mouse+keyboard is the best" is almost sounding ridiculous given how far the controls for shooters have come. Which is funny because back in the day the keyboard and mouse crowd were absolutely correct.

asimo77 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consoles are also as a good of a platform as PC for small developers, whether they be making small puzzle games, or trying to break into the larger AAA market.

Catyrpelius wrote:Several years ago Microsoft came up with the great idea (it actually was a good idea and I'm not being sarcastic) of allowing players on the console, the Xbox 360 and players on a computer running their operating system, to play the same game together. So Timmy on his console could play against Jimmy on his PC. 3 or 4 games were only ever made useing this system, and I'm pretty sure the servers that allowed this are shut down. The reason for this was that unless the console player had a significant advantage, say sticky targeting, a moderately skilled PC Gamer could out preform a very skilled Console gamer.

I would personally say that the limitation of console gaming isn't so much in the actual processor, memory and cpu, but instead is in the controller.

Catyrpelius wrote:Also, just to rib on any PS3 fanboys out there. Cell processor technology in the last few years has taken a major hit since its been found that relativly low speed, high core count processors have been able to out class them when calculating Floating Point.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Requia wrote:Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good thing?

Perpetual pushes for newer shinier hardware so that developers can include more eye candy is why I dropped PC gaming in the first place. Sit down and make a new game instead of making an old game with better graphics.

Plus if you are wanting to do "more with less", developers actually need to... what is the word... develop?

You know, figure out how to gain optimum compression for their data, how to code complex behaviours using easily processed code, etc. Basically take a complex, data and processor heavy section of code and streamline it. Something that will only benefit them in the future as now when the hardware moves on, there will be even more room to add in shiny new graphics

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't think you know how software development for hardware works.

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

Kanluwen wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

So what would the dedicated servers be for? 360 or PC?

The requirements for the two, at that point in time, were a smidge different. There were very few games that experimented with the 'cross-platform' that I can think of(Shadowrun being the biggest), and it was generally regarded as a very 'meh' thing.

The latency issues were one part, but the others were regulating cheat/exploits, etc.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If only games developers realise that graphics and "how many shards and flames we can fit on screen from each explosion" is actually not all that draws people to a game, but they come (and stay) for the story, how the game plays, the multiplayer support and experience, etc...

If people came and stayed for the story and gameplay call of duty black ops wouldn't be the best selling game in history. People come for graphics and they stay for gameplay. The story is irrelevant. Console hardware is a severe and significant limiter on both graphics and gameplay, especially with modern focus on large-scale multiplayer gaming.

Lord Scythican wrote:Developer's say consoles are holding them back? Then why are they developing for consoles?

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

So what would the dedicated servers be for? 360 or PC?

The requirements for the two, at that point in time, were a smidge different. There were very few games that experimented with the 'cross-platform' that I can think of(Shadowrun being the biggest), and it was generally regarded as a very 'meh' thing.

The latency issues were one part, but the others were regulating cheat/exploits, etc.

Latency? PC and 360 don't require two different kinds of servers. Cheating is an issue with both platforms.

Only reason why they ditched cross-platform was that consoles were getting owned without handicap.

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Developer's say consoles are holding them back? Then why are they developing for consoles?

Because they like to eat.

asimo77 wrote:I think PC's and consoles are equally good at conveying art if they have to.

illuknisaa wrote:

asimo77 wrote:I think PC's and consoles are equally good at conveying art if they have to.

If I want art I go to a non-modern-art museum.

Melissia wrote:Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

And the opposite is somehow true? This thread has gotten stupidly hyperbolic. Few of you have the grounding or knowledge to really discuss or understand this issue in the first place and posts like the last few are not helpful.

asimo77 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

And the opposite is somehow true? This thread has gotten stupidly hyperbolic. Few of you have the grounding or knowledge to really discuss or understand this issue in the first place and posts like the last few are not helpful.

Maybe take it easy a bit? There are plenty of ways of saying what you're trying to say without sounding like a complete jerk. Also funny that you mention hyperbole and then claim nearly no one has knowledge of the issue.

asimo77 wrote:See that's (somewhat) nicer way of saying things. You don't need an insult to get your point across.

ShumaGorath wrote:

asimo77 wrote:See that's (somewhat) nicer way of saying things. You don't need an insult to get your point across.

No, but the "games as art lol" needs to stop. Art is a subjective term and anyone working in the artistic side of games would probably tell you to go to hell about it. As may a modern artist to illuknisaa. I mean, I have no problem telling people they don't know much about game design or hardware, and as someone that works in the graphics industry I don't have much of a problem speaking on that either.

In general though, thats a troll conversation in the first place and I'd rather avoid it.

ShumaGorath wrote:And the opposite is somehow true?

That's all wonderful, but again, you don't need so much vitriol in your posts, it makes having internetz chats that much nicer.

In fact if you want to have a menaingful discussion you should probably start by acting a little more pleasant.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And the opposite is somehow true?

Did I say that? No? Okay then, I'm glad you're dropping that argument

The Dreadnote wrote:I am genuinely shocked that people are discussing things and having opinions despite being ill-informed about them!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And the opposite is somehow true?

Did I say that? No? Okay then, I'm glad you're dropping that argument

Then why did you say it at all? Trolling non sequitor statement?

FM Ninja 048 wrote:
Story>Gameplay>Graphics>Popularity

asimo77 wrote:I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

asimo77 wrote:I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

Cheesecat wrote:He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

SilverMK2 wrote:Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

htj wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

Amen to that. But it's a difficult situation when advertising a game. Advertising is primarily a visual medium and your trailers and screenshots will have a greater impact if the graphics have that wow factor.

Cheesecat wrote:

asimo77 wrote:I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

Melissia wrote:Your choice is your choice. It's like buying an old CRT monitor and then being mad that you have to have an adaptor to play modern digital television... well, you made the choice to go with the cheaper, easier thing, and so that's exactly what you got.

ShumaGorath wrote:This thread has gotten stupidly hyperbolic.

Melissia wrote:Your choice is your choice. It's like buying an old CRT monitor and then being mad that you have to have an adaptor to play modern digital television... well, you made the choice to go with the cheaper, easier thing, and so that's exactly what you got.

Melissia wrote:I'm not making you look stupid. Only saying "it's your choice". If you want to buy the cheaper, easier to get thing, then that's your choice. But you should know you get what you pay for. Doesn't mean you're stupid, in fact it assumes you're intelligent enough to know the difference between the two and that you're fine with it.

If you want to read insults into my posts, then just ignore me, because I would rather not have to talk to people who intentionally misread what I say.

Melissia wrote:Meh, I probably could have worded it better, but I really meant nothing by it.

Melissia wrote:It's developing into it though. I can almost guarantee that the next generation consoles-- and you know they'll be here within the next two years-- will cost more than an equivalent PC. Except maybe the Nintendo one.

Consoles are getting more expensive as PC parts are getting less expensive.

Melissia wrote:It's developing into it though. I can almost guarantee that the next generation consoles-- and you know they'll be here within the next two years-- will cost more than an equivalent PC. Except maybe the Nintendo one.
Consoles are getting more expensive as PC parts are getting less expensive.

Kanluwen wrote:
The difference is that consoles, while becoming 'more expensive' are also becoming 'more advanced'.

Most consoles now aren't simply gaming platforms. They're media platforms that use a controller instead of a mouse & keyboard.

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
The difference is that consoles, while becoming 'more expensive' are also becoming 'more advanced'.

Most consoles now aren't simply gaming platforms. They're media platforms that use a controller instead of a mouse & keyboard.

It's like they're some kind of mini computer

Melissia wrote:Except more expensive with fewer features!

Melissia wrote:The PS3, brand new, cost 600 bucks, and the 360 cost 480. As for the 300... I could buy a used computer on ebay that is better than a PS3 for that amount, yes (300 being the price of a USED PS3 at gamestop, further proving that they want to rip you off if you sell something to them).

A brand new computer? I'd have to do research on that. But you can guarantee that the next generation of consoles won't cost a mere three hundred when they're first released except for maybe the nintendo one.

Melissia wrote:That depends on what you refer to as top of the line. You can always add more to the point of ridiculousness.

Melissia wrote:A brand new computer? I'd have to do research on that. But you can guarantee that the next generation fo consoles won't cost a mere three hundred when they're first released except for maybe the nintendo one.

Melissia wrote:Hm. I don't honestly know? That depends on how far PC games advance. If, as I predict, they won't really get much more demanding in the next few years than Crysis 1 or SupCom were, you could probably get a computer that can handle these games on high for... six hundred or so? Heck integrated graphics cards are becoming better and better, they can handle many low and mid ranged games these days, and those are rather cheap cards. The absolute top of the line bleeding edge cards are ridiculous in price, but they only offer a marginal advantage over the mid-top line of cards.

Of course, if the graphics advance, the consoles won't be able to handle the next level either, so arguably consoles can't handle the high level graphics at the moment making this a misleading question *shrug*

Kanluwen wrote:

Melissia wrote:It's developing into it though. I can almost guarantee that the next generation consoles-- and you know they'll be here within the next two years-- will cost more than an equivalent PC. Except maybe the Nintendo one.
Consoles are getting more expensive as PC parts are getting less expensive.

The difference is that consoles, while becoming 'more expensive' are also becoming 'more advanced'.

Most consoles now aren't simply gaming platforms. They're media platforms that use a controller instead of a mouse & keyboard.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

Then perhaps he could benefit us all by sharing his immense wisdom on the subjects at hand. Indeed, he did not reply to my last post regards optimising software to suit the hardware you are using and that being only a benefit when you then improve the hardware.

In fact I remember some time ago reading an article about how game development could not keep pace with technology, with sometimes several years going past before games were fully able to take advantage of all the new processing technology, all the extra RAM, etc. Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Melissia wrote:It's developing into it though. I can almost guarantee that the next generation consoles-- and you know they'll be here within the next two years-- will cost more than an equivalent PC. Except maybe the Nintendo one.
Consoles are getting more expensive as PC parts are getting less expensive.

The difference is that consoles, while becoming 'more expensive' are also becoming 'more advanced'.

Most consoles now aren't simply gaming platforms. They're media platforms that use a controller instead of a mouse & keyboard.

Didn't the neo geo retail for like seven hundred dollars? Consoles really aren't getting much more expensive when you consider RBP of currency now compared to the nineties. It's averaging up more, but it's not as severe as it seems.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Didn't the neo geo retail for like seven hundred dollars? Consoles really aren't getting much more expensive when you consider RBP of currency now compared to the nineties. It's averaging up more, but it's not as severe as it seems.

Melissia wrote:Whcih goes to show how much prices have dropped for PCs.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Whcih goes to show how much prices have dropped for PCs.

My first PC was 700 dollars. This laptop was 2200. These things are all relative, a good gaming rig is still 3 grand. You have consoles to thank for the fact that high end graphics on PC games are as "affordable" as they are currently. Isn't that a conundrum?

ShumaGorath wrote:a good gaming rig is still 3 grand.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:a good gaming rig is still 3 grand.

Try less than one.

corpsesarefun wrote:I got my pc not long ago for just over £500 the hardware can stand up to pretty much any game I've thrown at it.

Damn windows XP breaks down and cries any time I try to use DX 10 or 11 (which my graphics card supports).

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats why I used the qualifier good. Not "outdated in sixth months".

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats why I used the qualifier good. Not "outdated in sixth months".

Mine's lasted for something on five years now, and prices are even lower than when I purchased this.

corpsesarefun wrote:I am.

Requia wrote:A brand new top of the line system can't play a new game with max settings either.

Requia wrote:Hmm, I pulled up some recent benchmarks, and it appears you're right, if you spend 700$ on a graphics card you can actually get playability in all the games tested (this does not extend to 200$ cards).

Times have changed.

ShumaGorath wrote:The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.

Orly? Then why can mine?

I propose the answer to this peculiar conundrum is that you don't actually know as much about what you're talking about as you think you do.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.

Orly? Then why can mine?

I propose the answer to this peculiar conundrum is that you don't actually know as much about what you're talking about as you think you do.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

Then perhaps he could benefit us all by sharing his immense wisdom on the subjects at hand. Indeed, he did not reply to my last post regards optimising software to suit the hardware you are using and that being only a benefit when you then improve the hardware.

In fact I remember some time ago reading an article about how game development could not keep pace with technology, with sometimes several years going past before games were fully able to take advantage of all the new processing technology, all the extra RAM, etc. Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

Requia wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it takes longer. The Xbox and Xbox 360 were huge financial disasters for MS (between the two of them they were 7 billion in the hole when they started using creative accounting to hide the losses), and Sony was running its entire games department at a loss for years after the Ps3 was released.

I suspect both of them will want to wait until they can produce better tech without relying on the razorblade business model, or maybe just try to hang on until the projects pull an overall profit.

daedalus-templarius wrote:I'd rather game devs work on making better experiences/gameplay rather than chasing new bells and whistles.

Arguably, as they become more familiar with the technology, they are able to put more resources towards the gameplay rather than technical issues.

Next consoles are supposedly targetted at 2014 at the moment, but who knows. I'm pretty happy with my xbox, gaming isn't really just graphics to me, I am much more critical of artistic style.

ShumaGorath wrote:Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.

Indeed. I believe I saw an article back in 2006 that said the XBox had brought Microsoft a loss of $2 billion? Don't quote me on that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The 360 division of the entertainment and devices division of Microsoft became profitable in 2008. If your seven billion number is real it's likely taken from the entertainment and devices division itself which encompasses current loss leaders like WP7. The PS3 is questionably profitable on a hardware sale basis now and they've been profiting off of game and blue ray sales since the console launched.

Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.

No, 2008 is when they rolled the MBU (a highly profitable part of MS, all they do is port Microsoft applications to OSX), and the Xbox project into the same reporting division. That would be the losses hidden behind creative accounting.

Simply because they make money off game sales doesn't mean they don't lose money overall. People have to buy enough games in order to make up the loss lead. Or in the Xbox's case, buy enough xbox live subscriptions. The first Xbox failed utterly at this, totaling 4 billion in losses. The 360 might have turned out better (no way to be sure with the MBU rolled in), as its got better game sales this generation, but with the RROD issue estimated to run 3 billion in warranty claims over the life of the product, I very much doubt that.

Bloomberg estimates that Xbox Live probably made over US$1 billion in revenue in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended on June 30, 2010.[63

ShumaGorath wrote:
The WiiHD has a 2012 target.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
The WiiHD has a 2012 target.

Oh yippy. Shovelware in HD!
There are a few good games on wii, but mostly all 1st party, and that's pretty much all I own.

I heard about the WiiHD, I also heard the rumors of it being more powerful than the 360 and the PS3... The whole electronics department of my store kind of laughed at that.

I honestly doubt it will be more powerful, maybe the same but we'll just have to see now won't we?

But why do we need a Wii in HD to begin with? Besides Legend of Zelda and Metroid they don't have too many franchises that need HD in my own opinion. Mario and Pokemon are just fine with the graphics they have as long as they don't let Team Ninja touch the Legend of Zelda series and turn Link from a silent protagonist to a whiny elf who won't use the Master sword unless Navi says he can.

ShumaGorath wrote:In regards to your previous post you were discussing personal experience with optimizing code across multiple platforms with widely varying specs and software suites. The process of writing short code for complex tasks is a pretty basic and fundamental part of optimizing for hardware, it's something companies now have coming on six years of experience with in the 360 (and without the hassle of massively varying hardware suites forcing them to write tasks in software like you likely had to do). Both Electronic arts and bungie have publicly been on record stating that the 360 hardware is fundamentally maxed out, and indeed it's difficult to argue that current titles are noticeably better then the crop from last year or the year before. Epic, a company that makes its money on the graphics dragon hasn't released a noticeably better looking game since gears2. Gears 3 is almost identical from a technical standpoint in the number of textures and polygons it can display to its predecessor and crysis 2 is honestly not particularly stunning on the consoles. Given that most of its advances on the PC come from the ssao or dynamic raytrace lighting working in concert with hdr lighting suites and audio (none of which are in the 360 version) thats not surprising. There is still "maxing" left to do on the Ps3 but that primarily involves writing every possible bit of code on a platform to support threading, even then you're going to bump into Amdahls law pretty quickly with the micro cores in the cell and it's weaker gpu is going to limit such advances to physics or AI routines. Something thats not fundamentally noticeable (or entirely worth development time).

The graphics dragon died two years ago on the 360 and it's prohibitively expensive to chase on the ps3. Current games are chasing the multiplayer dragon and massively ramping up marketing campaigns because WoM and the wow factor of new games on new hardware is long gone.

SilverMK2 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:In regards to your previous post you were discussing personal experience with optimizing code across multiple platforms with widely varying specs and software suites. The process of writing short code for complex tasks is a pretty basic and fundamental part of optimizing for hardware, it's something companies now have coming on six years of experience with in the 360 (and without the hassle of massively varying hardware suites forcing them to write tasks in software like you likely had to do). Both Electronic arts and bungie have publicly been on record stating that the 360 hardware is fundamentally maxed out, and indeed it's difficult to argue that current titles are noticeably better then the crop from last year or the year before. Epic, a company that makes its money on the graphics dragon hasn't released a noticeably better looking game since gears2. Gears 3 is almost identical from a technical standpoint in the number of textures and polygons it can display to its predecessor and crysis 2 is honestly not particularly stunning on the consoles. Given that most of its advances on the PC come from the ssao or dynamic raytrace lighting working in concert with hdr lighting suites and audio (none of which are in the 360 version) thats not surprising. There is still "maxing" left to do on the Ps3 but that primarily involves writing every possible bit of code on a platform to support threading, even then you're going to bump into Amdahls law pretty quickly with the micro cores in the cell and it's weaker gpu is going to limit such advances to physics or AI routines. Something thats not fundamentally noticeable (or entirely worth development time).

The graphics dragon died two years ago on the 360 and it's prohibitively expensive to chase on the ps3. Current games are chasing the multiplayer dragon and massively ramping up marketing campaigns because WoM and the wow factor of new games on new hardware is long gone.

Thanks for getting back to me

Yes, I see what you are saying, but there are always more tricks that can be created to deliver better performance, though there will be a performance ceiling (which I admit that I did not know developers thought they had reached). However, as I mentioned, graphics is not the only feature (or indeed the most important according to most people) that can be developed further and indeed a stagnant graphics level is of benefit to all the other development areas which often tend to receive less attention than the graphics (which developers still try and use to hide inadequacies in other aspects of the game - poor AI, rubbish story, poor multiplayer, etc).

ShumaGorath wrote:

The wii isn't powerful enough for large scale online games or actual open world games. It's also starting to sell poorly. One of the big reasons for that is the lack of third party development which the Wiis lack of horsepower isn't helping with.

Kanluwen wrote:Biggest seller in terms of the console itself, not in games.

Most of what they've sold has been the WiiFit styled stuff, and even then most Wii owners when quizzed mention they really only get brought out at parties or when drinking.

Kanluwen wrote:Profitable in what terms?

They're not really selling many games, and they're the primary developer/publisher for those games so they're losing money on that.

They're not really selling many peripherals, so they're losing money on that too.

They had a pretty big market share at launch when it was a novel thing, but then people kind of realized the gimmick and got over it.

Requia wrote:@Kanluwen: Every single thing you just wrote is wrong.

Nintendo has the largest market share by far, nearly 80 million consoles sold. The Xbox 360 has 50 million. And the wii continues to sell more, with 2.5 million consoles sold in december 2010, compared to 1.9 million xbox 360s.

Nintendo makes money on every console sold, they don't use the razorblade model (which is why the graphics are so far behind).

Nintendo has also sold far far more games, 2009 figures (since I can't find xbox or ps3 figures for 2010): PS3 115m, Xbox 360 103m, Wii 191m. (And since Nintendo produces the best selling titles, they get a bigger share of the profit).

The wii fit, which includes a peripheral, sold over 20 million units.

From a business perspective, the Wii is so far ahead of the pack that the others area bad joke.

Cheesecat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The wii isn't powerful enough for large scale online games or actual open world games. It's also starting to sell poorly. One of the big reasons for that is the lack of third party development which the Wiis lack of horsepower isn't helping with.

Isn't the wii the biggest seller in this generations console war though?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The wii isn't powerful enough for large scale online games or actual open world games. It's also starting to sell poorly. One of the big reasons for that is the lack of third party development which the Wiis lack of horsepower isn't helping with.

Isn't the wii the biggest seller in this generations console war though?

Yes, and they could likely sit on the revenue from that for a while. There are signs of a rapidly weakening position though. Year over year sales are down in almost every important area and it's likely nintendo is expecting the trend to continue. It's possible they hit market saturation. Both competing consoles are seeing respectable sales through late 2010 and into 2011 and the Wiis software attach rate has never been particularly good.

They sold 7 million Wiis in 2010. But when you sell 9 million in 2009 and 10 million in 2008 you begin to notice a trend.

Kanluwen wrote:

Requia wrote:
From a business perspective, the Wii is so far ahead of the pack that the others area bad joke.

And from every other perspective, the Wii's a dead system. They sell a few games, but most of their game sales are from bundles.

PS3 115m, Xbox 360 103m, Wii 191m

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, I'm still waiting for Wii's to actually become popular and not a novelty.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, I'm still waiting for Wii's to actually become popular and not a novelty.

Unsubstantiated hyperbole rangers!

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, I'm still waiting for Wii's to actually become popular and not a novelty.

Unsubstantiated hyperbole rangers!

Hey. Hey. It's clearly substantiated.

How often do you see people talking about the newest Wii release?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, I'm still waiting for Wii's to actually become popular and not a novelty.

Unsubstantiated hyperbole rangers!

Hey. Hey. It's clearly substantiated.

How often do you see people talking about the newest Wii release?

Anecdotal evidence rangers!

halonachos wrote:The Wii itself is a gimmick, through in some 3d and it'll be the biggest gimmick machine ever, of all times.

Maybe its because once a person buys a console they may be less likely to buy it again. Look at their DS's, they pumped out five versions of it; Original, Lite, DSi, DSiXL, and 3DS. Those sell pretty well, but in my store we still sell less 3DS's than we do DSiXL's because the $250 price tag.

Trying to sell a WiiHD is going to be tough, but I guess people buy televisions to watch cartoons in HD too.

halonachos wrote:Then why call it a WiiHD?

halonachos wrote:I mean the DS was the big gray brick that first came out. The DS Lite was a smaller version of the DS. The DSi had a camera added to it, the DSiXL was a bigger version of the DSi, the 3DS looks like the DS, but plays some games in 3D.

Numbers denote a new version that doesn't have to necessarily resemble the old one. Playstation 3 is newer than the Playstation 2, but isn't just a rehash of the Playstation 2. Now if they made the PS2HD then I would expect something similar to the PS2, but with an added HD feature. WiiHD sounds like an expansion for the Wii.

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

halonachos wrote:Then why call it a WiiHD?

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Then why call it a WiiHD?

They aren't (or at least, haven't said they are), the Wii HD was a rumored device that really was just the Wii with HD capability and a Blu Ray player, but either didn't exist or got squashed before it was officially announced.

Supposedly, they'll be announcing the next console at E3.

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.

Melissia wrote:

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.

Yet I'm still playing with settings higher than the consoles have ^.^

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.

Yet I'm still playing with settings higher than the consoles have ^.^

Nope, my console gets 1080p, which is a lot better than DX10. 1080 multiplied by p is a lot more powerful than D times 10 or 11 because p comes later in the alphabet than D. Come on its simple math really.

Melissia wrote:

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.

Yet I'm still playing with settings higher than the consoles have ^.^

Melissia wrote:And I don't get red rings of death.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.

Yet I'm still playing with settings higher than the consoles have ^.^

Nope, my console gets 1080p, which is a lot better than DX10. 1080 multiplied by p is a lot more powerful than D times 10 or 11 because p comes later in the alphabet than D. Come on its simple math really.

I'm not convinced you know what those numbers and letters mean...

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.

Yet I'm still playing with settings higher than the consoles have ^.^

Nope, my console gets 1080p, which is a lot better than DX10. 1080 multiplied by p is a lot more powerful than D times 10 or 11 because p comes later in the alphabet than D. Come on its simple math really.

I'm not convinced you know what those numbers and letters mean...

I know my alphabet and numerals.

halonachos wrote:I know my alphabet and numerals.

Melissia wrote:Weirdly enough, no. I haven't actually gotten very may blue screens on this problem, and regular sweeps with my AV programs have kept it working with very little hassle aside from a bug on one of its fans (Which thinks it's unplugged occasionally). And drivers are easy enough to fix if they have problems as well. All of these problems I solved myself without breaking my computer's warranty.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Fanboism is wonderful, but stop with the personal anecdotes of your wonder computer.

Actually, the problem is, that's completely within her right to do so. The glory of the PC is that we are allowed to pick and decide what we want to put into our systems, and we determine the quality of the machine. In contrast, consoles are identical, aside from the occasional enlarged memory capacity.

Too brag about one's machine is the Windows-given right of all PC gamers.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Until this very year, the only games I couldn't play in highest graphics settings were SupCom and Crysis, and those with DX11 (Which my system, being windows XP, doesn't support) as their highest settings.

My PC games looked better than they did when I rented them on my PS3 during the time that I had it.

XP doesn't support DX10, you aren't playing with max settings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Then why call it a WiiHD?

They aren't (or at least, haven't said they are), the Wii HD was a rumored device that really was just the Wii with HD capability and a Blu Ray player, but either didn't exist or got squashed before it was officially announced.

Supposedly, they'll be announcing the next console at E3.

They own rights to the name. They scored "WiiHD" about a year ago if I recall correctly, it set the blogosphere on fire then immediately died as talk of the 10 year new console cycle took back over. Thats no guarantee of an actual title though. Given their naming conventions with their current handheld lineup however I would be surprised if they strayed too far from convention.

ShumaGorath wrote:keep in mind I'm not saying she's lying (except for the part where she did but thats behind us). What I'm saying is that the position of personal experience can't be meaningfully conveyed in conversation and a stance that is arguing from a personal experience is inherently a weaker stance then one that uses citations and logic.

Cybronx wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:keep in mind I'm not saying she's lying (except for the part where she did but thats behind us). What I'm saying is that the position of personal experience can't be meaningfully conveyed in conversation and a stance that is arguing from a personal experience is inherently a weaker stance then one that uses citations and logic.

Not necessarily. I find anecdotal stories often to be the most informative. Theoretically anything can happen, but in reality we know that's not true.

In essence, real world application > raw data.

Daba wrote:The problem with both is the rising graphics requirements make the budget of games go from $100k to $1m++ to make.

However, games like Minecraft show that you don't need A++ graphics to sell at all.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:keep in mind I'm not saying she's lying (except for the part where she did but thats behind us). What I'm saying is that the position of personal experience can't be meaningfully conveyed in conversation and a stance that is arguing from a personal experience is inherently a weaker stance then one that uses citations and logic.

Not necessarily. I find anecdotal stories often to be the most informative. Theoretically anything can happen, but in reality we know that's not true.

In essence, real world application > raw data.

She was caught telling "mistruths" already, so you should probably be more weary of real world evidence when you weren't there to see it.

Cybronx wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:keep in mind I'm not saying she's lying (except for the part where she did but thats behind us). What I'm saying is that the position of personal experience can't be meaningfully conveyed in conversation and a stance that is arguing from a personal experience is inherently a weaker stance then one that uses citations and logic.

Not necessarily. I find anecdotal stories often to be the most informative. Theoretically anything can happen, but in reality we know that's not true.

In essence, real world application > raw data.

She was caught telling "mistruths" already, so you should probably be more weary of real world evidence when you weren't there to see it.

Well I'm not at liberty to comment on that since I don't know what was said, but either way we're getting off-topic.

The point of the matter is: A properly built computer can experience less errors than a regular console.

Inanimate wrote:

Daba wrote:The problem with both is the rising graphics requirements make the budget of games go from $100k to $1m++ to make.

However, games like Minecraft show that you don't need A++ graphics to sell at all.

But then games like Minecraft don't sell for €60. I see your point though.

Melissia wrote:Shuma's trolling aside, aren't we off topic?

Yes, shuma, I get it, you think I'm lying because I can't possibly be telling the truth, blah blah blah. Thanks for reminding me of the original reason I put you on my ignore list months ago, and why I'm putting you back on there. I don't honestly care what you think, you're too busy trolling to participate in polite conversation anyway.

Frankly, it's more XBL and PSN that's holding games back as opposed to the consoles themselves...

Melissia wrote:To elaborate on that, on the XBL at least microsoft wants game companies to charge for as much as they can so MS gets to get a cut of the profits. It's kinda annoying to the customer when compared to something like Steam.

halonachos wrote:Games, just like food, share a mathematical equation for satisfaction.

quality= price + want

Melissia wrote:To elaborate on that, on the XBL at least microsoft wants game companies to charge for as much as they can so MS gets to get a cut of the profits. It's kinda annoying to the customer when compared to something like Steam.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:To elaborate on that, on the XBL at least microsoft wants game companies to charge for as much as they can so MS gets to get a cut of the profits. It's kinda annoying to the customer when compared to something like Steam.

PSN is getting something like steam from valve because Valve prefers PSN's free online service than XBL's fee.

online source wrote:Today Valve issued a press release with “the goods” regarding Portal 2’s Steam service integration on PlayStation 3. For those who aren’t familiar, the PS3 version of Portal 2 will be the only console version of the title (sorry Xbox 360 owners) which includes Steam support. And what Steam brings to the PS3 is substantial, easily making it the best option if you’re planning to buy Portal 2 on a home console and not on PC or Mac.

Before we get into the thick of things, know that Portal 2’s Steam integration is a pioneering step for cross-platform play in gaming. Portal 2 marks the first game on consoles that will support Valve’s Steam network. By having Steam on the PS3, players of Portal 2 will be able to cross-platform matchmatch and play with PC and Mac users, as well as chat with their Steam friends and earn Steam achievements on their PS3. You’ll also be able to save your single player and co-op progress to the Steam Cloud which enables you to go to any PS3 console and continue your game where you left off. The future is here!

All of these features are easily accessible once you link your Steam account to your PlayStation Network account through a boot-up option in Portal 2. And for those who don’t already have a Steam account, it’s a simple procedure that you’ll be prompted to do when first turning on Portal 2. The Steam overlay is apparently in “lockstep” with the PSN’s friends list and trophies, making it so the two networks are integrated fluidly, not competing against one another.

Finally, and this is the real kicker, purchasers of Portal 2 on PS3 will get a voucher to download a full copy of the game on PC or Mac through Steam. This comes at no extra cost, it’s purely the gravy poured on top of this awesome digital feast.

So I think we’ve made our case. If you’re planning on buying Portal 2 on a home console next week when the game ships, we advise you to go with the PlayStation 3 version. None of these features are available on the Xbox 360.

Inanimate wrote:

Daba wrote:The problem with both is the rising graphics requirements make the budget of games go from $100k to $1m++ to make.

However, games like Minecraft show that you don't need A++ graphics to sell at all.

But then games like Minecraft don't sell for €60. I see your point though.

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

Requia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

Consoles won't do max settings either. Or rather, they'll do max settings for the console (since there's only 1), but not max settings for what a PC can handle.

Cybronx wrote:*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Cybronx wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

halonachos wrote:You can also get a console for a gift.

halonachos wrote:I don't believe you get it Shuma.

Melissia wrote:Want to know how to get a cheap PC? Build your own with custom ordered parts.

It's not a secret, it's something any dedicated PC user will tell you. Computers bought off the shelf are ludicrously priced, and have always been, while parts are far cheaper.

halonachos wrote:You can also get a console for a gift.

Dunno about you, but I'm far more likely to get a 100-150 buck new graphics card as a gift than I am a 250-300 dollar (and that's for a USED one) console.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A five minute search reveals thus:

100-150 for a good graphics card, 70-100 for a terabyte hard drive, 25-60 for a good power supply, 150-300 for a good quad-core processor, 50-100 for a computer case, 50-100 for a disk drive. 5-50 for a computer fan (you may want multiple). Depending on which operating system you want, add that cost as well (I prefer to go with XP, but if you want top of the line graphics you'll go with W7).

A few other minor parts depending on what you're looking into and a good antivirus (as well as well as generally maintaining it and being careful where you go on the internet, of course) and you'll easily have a good gaming computer that can last for years while having better performance than consoles for about 700-800. Oh, and it can be used for more than games.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

I don't believe you get it Shuma.

Cybronx wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

I don't believe you get it Shuma.

halonachos is right. Besides, why argue with a troll? Think want you want.

halonachos wrote:I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

And my computer can do actual work along with games.

Sure, you have to upgrade a PC eventually. You also have to replace a console eventually. When done right, upgrading the PC is far, far cheaper. A couple hundred at MOST, compared to six or seven hundred for a brand new console. And how cheap computers are getting is improving every day, what with computer parts getting far cheaper while consoles are getting more expensive. If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

There's truth to this. The decrease in the price of memory is just the beginning of declining prices for computer parts.

ou may have bought your PS3 for $300, but a 20GB PS3 originally cost $500 (not to mention the 60GB $600), and only decreased over time. On the flip-side, the latest computer parts remain at roughly the same pricing, meaning you can buy new computer parts without fear of a price reduction later.

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Cybronx wrote:

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Cybronx wrote:

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

So you like being (often) lied to without the intelectual investment of having to fact check or produce coherent or meaningful arguments. Noted for later.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Thanks to the difference in processors and coding.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Thanks to the difference in processors and coding.

Running tasks that have six parallel proceses running (the cells never really get maxed) entirely in software because you aren't running a hardware specific unix setup tends to work poorly.

Cybronx wrote:
Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

And my computer can do actual work along with games.

Sure, you have to upgrade a PC eventually. You also have to replace a console eventually. When done right, upgrading the PC is far, far cheaper. A couple hundred at MOST, compared to six or seven hundred for a brand new console. And how cheap computers are getting is improving every day, what with computer parts getting far cheaper while consoles are getting more expensive. If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

Karon wrote:Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Karon wrote:Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

I'll post this again. The NeoGeo sold for like 700 dollars new.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Karon wrote:Thank god, its not just me that realizes Melissia constantly makes up bs to prove her point.

A console has NEVER been $600-$700 dollars, except maybe if it was paired with a Kinect or something similar, but that is adding much more than just the console.

I'll post this again. The NeoGeo sold for like 700 dollars new.

LordofHats wrote:I can certainly agree consoles aren't cheap, but come on. They're cheaper than most gaming PC's. The only way to make a gaming PC less or close to less is to order everything two years old, at discount, and put it together yourself, which I'm not really sure is worth the trouble

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

30GB PS3? Do you mean 60 or 40? I've never heard of a 30GB one.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:According to a quick googling, the 30GB PS3 was originally priced at 599$.

So that's two consoles that have cost as much as some have said never costed ~600-700.

30GB PS3? Do you mean 60 or 40? I've never heard of a 30GB one.

halonachos wrote:Don't feed Krimzon, every single one of his posts involve the words; poop, turd, anus, etc. He may be gone soon.