53595
Post by: Palindrome
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/28/pc-gaming-in-still-not-dead-shocker/
I’ll start this by saying that, to date, I’ve not been at all impressed by the PC Gaming Alliance, an organisation which seems to have been charging its members large sums to do God only knows what in near-silence, while PC gaming has busily got on with resurging dramatically all by itself. So I’m not entirely inclined to take their report on the current state of PC gamingland at face value, especially given that Steam famously doesn’t share sales figures, but at the same time it’s always nice to hear a big, positive number. By their and their analysts’ reckoning, PC gaming is now a “$20 billion global market with record revenues of $6.8 billion,” up 8% from last year.
At a complete guesstimation, I’d actually be surprised if the growth wasn’t higher. But I’m no analyst, I have no sales figures and I’m terrible at keeping tabs on my own money, let alone someone else’s.
Another claim is that there are over 1 billion PC gamers planet-wide, some 250 million of which are core gamers – i.e. the sort that would buy a BioShock, rather than the sort that would play FarmVille or perhaps even Minecraft (which is very much its own grey area these days).
The largest market is claimed to be China, but then again China’s the largest market for pretty much everything these days. PC gaming audiences in Korea, Japan, the US, Britain and Germany all grew last year too. all showed growth in 2012. Together these markets also increased revenue by percent in 2012, to $8.4 billion. Take all those numbers with a pinch of salt, but right now we don’t have a lot else to go on.
The PCGA are still on about trying to improve their PC Gaming Certification and Logo Program, and acknowledge “that much work remains to be done.” It’s never going to take off, let’s be honest, but hopefully not too many organisations are paying the PCGA’s eye-watering membership fees in the hope it will.
Meanwhile the console gaming industry is in a right old flap about declining sales. Does that mean we win? Don’t be silly, there was never any war.
Read the whole report here, if you like. There are a few more not entirely substantiated numbers in it.
a $20 billion global market which grew 8% last year.....and thats without taking into account Steam.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I doubt it too. At least, not in the sense a lot of people think of it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
PC gaming isn't dead, and hasn't even been close to dying.
Compared to the monotony and blandness of many console games, which are often clones, sequels, or ports, PC gaming has been practically thriving, with huge amounts of independent releases and tons of innovation.
Meh?
42494
Post by: nomotog
PC gaming use to be dead, but that was a quite few years ago. The indy market has really reinvigorated things.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Die hard and probably outdated PC geek here but can I ask:
a $20 billion global market which grew 8% last year.
Any console figures to run in parallel? Comparitively?
PC gaming audiences in Korea,
PC gaming or PCs themselves? Obvious difference, my old lad will buy a PC to do his spreadsheets on, I'm buying one to blow T72s apart.
Meanwhile the console gaming industry is in a right old flap about declining sales
Source and and/or statistics?
Don’t be silly, there was never any war.
Defensive!
There was never a war, all there was - from a strictly PC gaming point of view - was a dumbing down of games, franchises and titles.
"oh look another yellow arrow to tell me where to go" or a mash the spacebar to escape this fiend event " zzzz
The more I think about it, the more I think its actually generational i.e. age related rather than Console Vs PC.
I grew up games where death was just around the corner, the loot chest was hidden beyond reason and jumping across chasms was certain death.
#shrug
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
I'm not surprised. I've already seen several reports from various developers who have basically looked at the WiiU, and upcoming PS4, and many of them basically said that the nextgen consoles won't be as good as PCs.
This is just coming out of my butt here, so I could be wrong, but I don't think any one console game can beat the sales figures of World of Warcraft or Minecraft. Indie games are thriving on PCs, Steam is an unstoppable juggernaut, Kickstarters for new (admittedly retro) PC games are raking in millions, and so on.
65286
Post by: Brother Captain Alexander
 Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm not surprised. I've already seen several reports from various developers who have basically looked at the WiiU, and upcoming PS4, and many of them basically said that the nextgen consoles won't be as good as PCs.
This, no console will ever be as strong as strongest PC. Ot have nearly good graphics.
While consoles are better for some games ( football, sport games, arcade adventures etc... ) PC is champion when it comes to MMORPG's, FPS, RPG's, Simulations, Strategies, Builders etc...
68355
Post by: easysauce
actually, console gamings is what is "dead"
all the latest consoles are becoming much more like computers,
they have internet access, more peripherals, hard drives ect...
if anything the "console" is dead because its just a computer dedicated to a particular brand of games,
where as the computer can play nintento and sega alike with equal ease
no to mention the controls are soo much better on a computer, full qwerty keyboard, + mouse has soo many options, plus you can just plug in a gamepad/joystick
that plus computers can do all this non gaming stuff as well, its a no brainer .
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
easysauce wrote:actually, console gamings is what is "dead"
all the latest consoles are becoming much more like computers,
they have internet access, more peripherals, hard drives ect...
This, pretty much. Not "dead", but I don't see any point in buying a console anymore as they are inferior pcs.
71531
Post by: Blackcrusader
PC gaming is quite the opposite of dead, it seem to be just getting better and better. I.E. plantside 2, starcraft 2 wings of liberty and heart of the swarm. need i continue?
42494
Post by: nomotog
 Brother Captain Alexander wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm not surprised. I've already seen several reports from various developers who have basically looked at the WiiU, and upcoming PS4, and many of them basically said that the nextgen consoles won't be as good as PCs.
This, no console will ever be as strong as strongest PC. Ot have nearly good graphics.
While consoles are better for some games ( football, sport games, arcade adventures etc... ) PC is champion when it comes to MMORPG's, FPS, RPG's, Simulations, Strategies, Builders etc...
It's not the graphics. It's the other way around. Most of the PC games that are pushing PC gameing have rather simple graphics. I think the reason we are seeing more PC sales is because the graphics race has settled and you can be PC gammer without updating every year. PC's real advantage is the openness of the platform that lets it do things like minecraft.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Last time I upgraded my computer (excepting the upgrades I've been starting on this year) was late 2006/early 2007 when I built it. It was only recently, with games like planetside 2 and mechwarrior online that I even had any desire to upgrade.
People exaggerate on how much you need to upgrade you computer. It's stupid.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Feth minecraft. For me, the strength of PC gaming is games like the DCS series. You'll never get that kind of depth on a console.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Meh. I'm the proud owner of a £1200 PC, and I still love my PS3 and my old Xbox. I don't see why we can't like both.
As for PC gaming being dead...no. In fact, it's never been more alive. I wouldn't agree that console gaming is dying though, or that it will become obsolete, for the simple reason that, for your average Joe, it's just more accessible. PCs are of course technically superior, but consoles will always have a place.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Squigsquasher wrote:Meh. I'm the proud owner of a £1200 PC, and I still love my PS3 and my old Xbox. I don't see why we can't like both.
As for PC gaming being dead...no. In fact, it's never been more alive. I wouldn't agree that console gaming is dying though, or that it will become obsolete, for the simple reason that, for your average Joe, it's just more accessible. PCs are of course technically superior, but consoles will always have a place.
I own a PC and a Wii, and play both.
But owning a PC apparently makes you an elitist for a dead platform or something.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
 Melissia wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:Meh. I'm the proud owner of a £1200 PC, and I still love my PS3 and my old Xbox. I don't see why we can't like both.
As for PC gaming being dead...no. In fact, it's never been more alive. I wouldn't agree that console gaming is dying though, or that it will become obsolete, for the simple reason that, for your average Joe, it's just more accessible. PCs are of course technically superior, but consoles will always have a place.
I own a PC and a Wii, and play both.
But owning a PC apparently makes you an elitist for a dead platform or something.
Yeah. System war idiocy really gets on my tits. It seems that nobody can just enjoy their gaming system without bashing everybody else's.
It doesn't matter whether you play on a PC, Wii, Gamecube, PS1, Mega Drive, Atari 7800, TurboGraphX 16 or any other system, someone is going to complain that you're on the wrong platform.
For instance, I have had people telling me that I'm a neanderthal for using a PS3 instead of a PC, then when I explain that I have a PC, and a thumpin' good one at that, the same person then tells me I should be using a Mac.
Jesus, I think I'm gonna get a Game Boy Advance off eBay and stick to that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Then they'll be complaining that you should have gotten a 3DS.
Mind you, no one says you should get a PSP.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Melissia wrote:Then they'll be complaining that you should have gotten a 3DS.
Mind you, no one says you should get a PSP.
I must admit, I quite liked the PSP, and I'm very fond of my PS Vita...
But then I have very strange tastes in games and systems. For example, I am convinced that LittleBIGplanet 2 is the best game ever made.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Meh, the whole console vs console vs PC war isn't really caused by the gamers, but by the corporations with their "system exclusive games". If all games were available on all platforms, I think things would be a lot better for the gamers (maybe not so much for the console makers, though).
29408
Post by: Melissia
I'd also be better for the gamemakers as well, I think.
33327
Post by: sarpedons-right-hand
PC gaming is, and has always been big. There are games that I cannot play on a PC or Mac, but thats why I have a PS3. *shrugs*
I can't understand system bias, just get the systems you like and get on with it.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I recently (yesterday!) got back into PC gaming.
But from what I can remember, we've pretty much been hearing that the PC is a dead platform for gaming for about... the last...15 years or so?
Clearly, that hasn't ever really been the case, so...
...wait, what are we talking about again? 
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
What drove me away from PC gaming was that it was always a crapshoot if a game was going to work on my system or not. That and the "no returns on opened software" policy at most retailers. A $50 game turned into a $150 purchase after needing a new graphics card, more RAM, etc. and it always turned out to not be worth the cost.
There's something to be said about the plug-n-play aspect of a console. You know that a PS3 game is going to work in your PS3 and a 3DS game will work on a 3DS. Makes buying presents easy too.
Plus, I like relaxing on my couch in front of a giant LCD instead of a computer monitor. I play with friends and family over a lot too.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Swan-of-War wrote:What drove me away from PC gaming was that it was always a crapshoot if a game was going to work on my system or not.
This is simply not a problem for the vast majority of PC gamers. Being incapable of reading the minimum specs on the side of a box is not a technical problem. I agree that the simpleness of console games has it's appeal, and some games are just better on a TV - but pretending that you're rolling the dice on whether or not "a game will work" on your computer is factually deficient.
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
Bully for you Ouze - I enjoy the convenience of reading just one spec - Wii U, XBox 360, PS3, etc. Plus, I don't have to call other people up when I give them with a birthday / holiday gift to see if their computer can run it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Agree with Swan-of-War. Understanding minimum requirements used to be easy when it was a matter of Pentium II or Pentium III. IME, it currently implies a greater understanding of the underlying tech, which many people simply don't have. And looking down on people who don't have that understanding is quite simply an elitist attitude.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Understanding the graphics card part of minimum requirements these days requires you to have a fething degree in bullgakonomics.
And this is coming from someone who plays PC games 85% of the time.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yeah, I saw your post about that in the BioShock thread.
42494
Post by: nomotog
I find requirements to be a crap shoot too. It's the biggest negative with PC gaming. I never know for sure if a game will play oh and I can't return it.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
I've always thought of ('true') PC gaming as a little too much of an investment. PC gaming is for the serious 'hobbyist', one who is prepared to sink alot more time and money into their hobby. PC gaming is the difference between taking your car to a track day once a month and taking part in sponsored pro-am races with a dedicated car.
Also, for me, the 'net gain' of the PC's increased power is not really worth it; sub-surface scattering, ambient occlusion, texture tesselation, 120fps etc/whatever and all the other DX11 effects, are drool inducing but aren't crucial to the experience. I'm used to 30fps and below, screen tearing, texture pop-in, vaseline smears of motion blur and smaller player caps. Finally the real games in PC gamer's library hold little interest for me, RTS, MMORPG, DotA-games basically anything that requires the QWERTY's breadth of input, they're, imo, too much like hard work! 
I have and always will be a console gamer.
Discussion:
Tannhauser42 wrote:Meh, the whole console vs console vs PC war isn't really caused by the gamers, but by the corporations with their "system exclusive games". If all games were available on all platforms, I think things would be a lot better for the gamers (maybe not so much for the console makers, though).
This is a ill-informed and naive viewpoint, although it's clear you meant well so no hard feelings. If we followed the reasoning above we would have even blander risk-averse titles than currently due to a stagnation of creative innovation, they'd also look like garbage to boot, due to a stagnation of technical innovation.
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Maybe just check the game specs? If you want to use something, it always helps to make sure it does work.
The simple fact is, not all games, as with PCs, are created equal. The fact that games have to be standardized to run on consoles is often a bigger disadvantage. For example, pulled from the Warframe Steam Page I have the minimum system requirements. It's farily easy to understand:
Minimum:
OS:Windows XP SP 3 or higher
Processor:Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 or AMD Athlon x64 4000+
Memory:2 GB RAM
Graphics:Nvidia GeForce 8600 GT or ATI Radeon HD 3600
DirectX®:9.0c
Hard Drive:2 GB HD space
Other Requirements:Broadband Internet connection
The only things slightly difficult to understand are the Processor and Graphics requirements, and a simple bit of common sense and Google will make it obvious. If you have a newer or more powerful item, it will exceed the specifications.
Requirements are really there to make sure that you actually can use software. I know with a console it requires less thought, but honestly, if requirements are a huge problem to you, it's incredibly difficult.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Just thought of a better way to put my point across.
PC gaming is a hobby, Console gaming is entertainment.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Gaming in general is a hobby, stop deluding yourself. So is movie-going and sports.  BlapBlapBlap wrote:Maybe just check the game specs?The only things slightly difficult to understand are the Processor and Graphics requirements, and a simple bit of common sense and Google will make it obvious. If you have a newer or more powerful item, it will exceed the specifications.
No, it won't. Graphics cards are nigh-impossible to tell if they work from minimum requirement specifications.
123
Post by: Alpharius
That part does suck, but the type of games I'm mostly after on the PC (turn based strategy!) are luckily not a drain on the video card.
Having said that, I sprung for the best card I could afford now in a probably futile attempt to "Future Proof" my system...
29408
Post by: Melissia
I did that seven years ago. It worked for, well, seven years. But searching for a new one as I did in Jan was a complete and total pain in the ass because there is no real objective way to measure them that anyone has been able to coherently explain.
The closest I've gotten is "read the reviews" but even that's kind of lame.
16387
Post by: Manchu
For a lot of people, PC gaming is just entertainment. But then again, at that level of discussion, there really isn't much of a difference between consoles and PCs. When you take the point to its extreme, which is what usually happens in these discussions, then I think you make a very good point. For the overwhelming majority of console owners, the console is a box that doesn't open. Even rather casual PC owners know that they (or more likely someone else) can replace the graphics card in their machine. I mean, no one calls their console their "rig" or anything similar. This is why PC gamers have the reputation of being elitists -- basically because they have rather specialized knowledge and very high standards.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The so-called "difference" between gaming as entertainment and gaming as a hobby is basically entirely artificial and fake, especially if you define one as "a PC gamer" and the other as "a PC gamer who is in denial about how their gaming PC is, in fact, just a gaming PC". It's a debate not worth having.
16387
Post by: Manchu
That's obviously false. Someone who plays video games when they have time is quite different from someone who spends a great deal of their time and money modifying the platform on which they play games for the sake of getting better performance out of those games.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Manchu wrote:That's obviously false. Someone who plays video games when they have time is quite different from someone who spends a great deal of their time and money modifying the platform on which they play games for the sake of getting better performance out of those games.
Moving the goalposts, huh?
35046
Post by: Perkustin
That's something i didnt think of that further differentiates the PC gamer, there's that feeling of ownership they have for their machine. I couldn't say how popular those bespoke Gaming PCs are however i can say that almost every PC gamer i know has 'built' their own machine. That's a further investment, the craftsmen's pride or workmanship for want of a better word.
Well apparently our definition of Hobby differs, Melissia.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Perkustin wrote:That's something i didnt think of that further differentiates the PC gamer, there's that feeling of ownership they have for their machine. I couldn't say how popular those bespoke Gaming PCs are however i can say that almost every PC gamer i know has 'built' their own machine. That's a further investment, the craftsmen's pride or workmanship for want of a better word.
Well apparently our definition of Hobby differs, Melissia.
From my dictionary, a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."
My posting on this forum is a hobby for me. My reading Battletech novels is a hobby, same with my watching of NCIS and the various CSIs.
As is playing games-- regardless of what kind of PC I play them on (be it Windows, Xbox, Wii, Playstation, they're all PCs).
16387
Post by: Manchu
TBH, I don't follow you at all. Melissia wrote:From my dictionary, a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."
I think that's a rather poor definition given that the point of a definition is to distinguish and this one does not distinguish a hobby from any other kind of leisure activity. For example, I like to regularly spend time with my family but I certainly wouldn't call it a hobby. Same thing with watching TV. Calling something a hobby implies a more active participation than normal. With video games, many PC gamers go beyond the normal level of participation, i.e., just playing the game.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I dislike the constant and unnecessary changing of the definition of the terms "hobby" and "personal computer".
A "hobby" is just something someone regularly does in their leisure time for entertainment/enjoyment. It could even just be something as simple as sitting back and sipping beer-- hell, beer-drinking is a pretty popular hobby and people take it VERY seriously. But it doesn't have to be taken seriously or have a ton of effort put in to it to be a hobby. Hell, I consider 40k a hobby for me, and I barely even bother dealing with my models these days.
Am I somehow not a 40k hobbyist because I don't have entrants for Golden Daemon, or because I don't make plans for Apocalypse games?
Similarly, a " PC", or "personal computer", is, quite simply, a computer intended for use by a single individual. The term developed as a distinction between personal computers and the (then) more common mainframe computers (or the short-lived "minicomputers" that were ONLY the size of a fridge!). Now, if you were to use a term like "Desktop" computer, that might make some more sense... except that with the exception of portable gaming systems, gaming consoles are, themselves, desktop computers.
Thus, the important distinction isn't whether or not something is or isn't a PC, but rather what operating system it runs. Attempting to use the generic term " PC" to indicate that a specific personal computer is not a personal computer is just bizarre and wrong. Hell, even the "don't open the box" rule doesn't necessarily work for Windows gaming PCs-- after all, there's numerous gaming boxes where you void your warranty if you open them up. Manchu wrote:I think that's a rather poor definition given that the point of a definition is to distinguish
Then use a different term.
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
Why do all the threads in this forum degrade into boring sparing matches over semantics?
PC gaming is not dead. Thread over.
29408
Post by: Melissia
There's nothing wrong with having sparing matches over semantics!
16387
Post by: Manchu
Beer drinking can be hobby -- but in order to be a hobby, you have to do more than simply drink beer often.
40k, and war gaming generally, is considered a hobby because it takes more time and investment than most table top games.
Video games can be a hobby in the same sense -- if you're doing more than simply playing the game. Now, that could mean that you're participating in a guild in MMO or it could mean that you actively update your machine or it could mean that you really like digging into the history of video games, etc., etc.
A hobby is something more than the mostly passive enjoyment that someone can get out of a leisure pursuit in its normal course. It's like the difference between liking something and being a fan of something.
But whether you acknowledge the real connotations of the word hobby or not, the point stands: with PC gaming, one can pour resources into upgrading the platform to get better performance out of the games; this is not really true of console gaming.
If high end game performance is a major part of your enjoyment of gameplay then PC gaming is definitely for you.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:Video games can be a hobby in the same sense -- if you're doing more than simply playing the game.
That is an unnecessary and entirely arbitrary addition to the definition. Manchu wrote:A hobby is something more than the mostly passive enjoyment that someone can get out of a leisure pursuit in its normal course.
Correct, you have to participate in it regularly, as well, not just... sparingly, to continue mocking the typo of the poster above (hehe). But it does not indicate a deep level of participation. Manchu wrote:If high end game performance is a major part of your enjoyment of gameplay then PC gaming is definitely for you.
High-end game performance is not a major part of my enjoyment of gameplay-- and yet, I still prefer PC gaming.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissia wrote:That is an unnecessary and entirely arbitrary addition to the definition.
Not at all. Also, I don't think you understand "the" definition of the word anyway. But as I said, it's not really important to the larger point of PC gaming entailing, or being able to entail, the pursuit of high end performance whereas console gaming is not really involved in that. That was Perkustin's point and it's pretty valid whether or not the word hobby is invoked.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
The difference of PC vs game system is too much like Microsoft and Apple.
PC: Set hardware, interface and all elements of the the hardware to your liking and go. Upgrade anytime, anywhere you want. Small problems of compatibility and inefficiency have to be dealt with.
Apple: Open box, plug in, play with dedicated interface, hardware and storage capacity. Very efficient. No upgrade. Long time between next model. But a "common" experience with your buddy (communist?).
Both have advantages but personally I hate being "managed" and adapt to a system when I can change it. Cool thing is games are made to these consoles and slow down the tech curve so computers are cheaper and have way better hardware than the software needs. I have never had so little need to upgrade in years.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:But as I said, it's not really important to the larger point of PC gaming entailing, or being able to entail, the pursuit of high end performance whereas console gaming is not really involved in that.
I see it as only a matter of time, really. They're so similar and they're getting more and more similar as time goes on. Hell, look at Windows Vista, 7, and 8-- Microsoft has been TRYING to make its Windows platforms to be more like gaming consoles for some time, now. Same with the 360 and PS3's hard drive capacities as well, they're moving closer to what is thought of as " PC" gaming. Because gaming consoles always were PCs to begin with.
42494
Post by: nomotog
edit: nvm. I don't really care enough.
29408
Post by: Melissia
nomotog wrote:The difference between a hobby and entertainment is that their is something produced at the end of a hobby.
And here I thought Manchu's distinction was arbitrary... forgive me oh Manchu, I have seen the darkness and wish to convert my ways!
Jokes aside... no. There's nothing necessarily "produced" as a result of a hobby aside from enjoyment.
16387
Post by: Manchu
As I've said to you on this point before, that's technically true but not really true in terms of the market. People use PCs and consoles in very different ways. Hence the SteamBox. FWIW, I don't think the SteamBox will "count as" PC gaming because it will be a self-contained, non-customizable product.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Manchu wrote:As I've said to you on this point before, that's technically true but not really true in terms of the market. People use PCs and consoles in very different ways. Hence the SteamBox. FWIW, I don't think the SteamBox will "count as" PC gaming because it will be a self-contained, non-customizable product.
I thought the steam box would be upgradable?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:As I've said to you on this point before, that's technically true but not really true in terms of the market. People use PCs and consoles in very different ways. Hence the SteamBox. FWIW, I don't think the SteamBox will "count as" PC gaming because it will be a self-contained, non-customizable product.
"The market" is an inherently contradictory and incoherent jumble of people attempting to lie (or "creatively interpret the truth" if you prefer) to you to try to differentiate their product and attempt to convince you that you want to buy it.
Pardon me for not giving a rat's left buttcheek about what "the market" thinks.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'll have to take your word for it. Have you heard that you can upgrade it like a PC or that it will have something more like an internal version of console peripherals? Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Pardon me for not giving a rat's left buttcheek about what "the market" thinks.
By market, I meant people who are buying. I'd use industry to refer to people who are selling. So the distinction here, like I said, is that people game with PCs differently than they do with consoles. It can be something as obvious as input devices or as complex as where gaming happens in a residence.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
@Manchu Prolly be Ninja'd but the xi3 Piston, the first steambox, is, iirc, upgradable but in a far more modular way than a normal pc, the upgrades would be first-party afaik.
16387
Post by: Manchu
That sounds like a matter of peripherals to me, like the 360's "external" HD.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:So the distinction here, like I said, is that people game with PCs differently than they do with consoles. It can be something as obvious as input devices or as complex as where gaming happens in a residence.
I use the same exact style controller (dualshock), the same desk, and even the same TV screen for my computer gaming and for playing older games my PS2. Meh?
The distinction is entirely arbitrary and pointless.
16387
Post by: Manchu
First, I don't know why you insist on being so absolutist; it's abrasive. Second, the distinction can't be pointless considering it drives a huge amount of sales. Whether or not you can use a PC like a console, as in your example, millions of people are not interested in doing so for a variety of reasons.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:Second, the distinction can't be pointless considering it drives a huge amount of sales.
That doesn't indicate that the distinction isn't pointless. Marketing thrives off of pointless distinctions to use in their attempts to lie to you to convince you that you want or even NEED their product.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Again, in this case, I'm not talking about how the product is advertised by people doing marketing so much as how it is used by the consumers who make up the market.
123
Post by: Alpharius
So, PC Gaming = Not Dead!
Good thing too, otherwise that would have been some incredibly bad timing on my part!
42494
Post by: nomotog
So is melissia saying there is no difference between console and PC? Ya that's completely wrong. Their is a huge difference between the two.
29408
Post by: Melissia
nomotog wrote:So is melissia saying there is no difference between console and PC?
No.
I'm saying the only real difference between a windows gaming PC and an xbox gaming PC is the operating system.
"Gaming consoles" are nothing more than personal computers dedicated almost exclusively to gaming. There's really nothing outside of Microsoft's EULA that's stopping you from modifying an xbox PC the same way you can modify a windows PC. Or running xbox-based software on a windows PC using an emulator. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Again, in this case, I'm not talking about how the product is advertised by people doing marketing so much as how it is used by the consumers who make up the market.
That doesn't change my answer.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Melissia wrote:nomotog wrote:So is melissia saying there is no difference between console and PC?
No.
I'm saying the only real difference between a windows gaming PC and an xbox gaming PC is the operating system.
"Gaming consoles" are nothing more than personal computers dedicated almost exclusively to gaming. There's really nothing outside of Microsoft's EULA that's stopping you from modifying an xbox PC the same way you can modify a windows PC. Or running xbox-based software on a windows PC using an emulator.
That is well I guess not too wrong. It's a oversimplification.
16387
Post by: Manchu
As far as I can tell, it's the province of MMOs and such RTS games as still get produced. So, yes, it's very much alive if you like that sort of thing. My mainstay gaming comes from RPGs and Action Adventure -- both of which I think play better with big TV screens and controllers. So for me at least, PC gaming has been pretty dead for a long while.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Manchu wrote:As far as I can tell, it's the province of MMOs and such RTS games as still get produced. So, yes, it's very much alive if you like that sort of thing. My mainstay gaming comes from RPGs and Action Adventure -- both of which I think play better with big TV screens and controllers. So for me at least, PC gaming has been pretty dead for a long while.
I used my 360 twice in about 2 years before selling it on for £30, console gaming is dead to me
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yep, it just comes down to what/how you like to play.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:As far as I can tell, it's the province of MMOs and such RTS games as still get produced. So, yes, it's very much alive if you like that sort of thing. My mainstay gaming comes from RPGs and Action Adventure -- both of which I think play better with big TV screens and controllers. So for me at least, PC gaming has been pretty dead for a long while.
It's also the domain of indie games and any game that has a heavy modding scene, and the best RPGs (which benefit the most from modding anyway).
12313
Post by: Ouze
Swan-of-War wrote:Bully for you Ouze - I enjoy the convenience of reading just one spec - Wii U, XBox 360, PS3, etc. Plus, I don't have to call other people up when I give them with a birthday / holiday gift to see if their computer can run it.
Manchu wrote:Agree with Swan-of-War. Understanding minimum requirements used to be easy when it was a matter of Pentium II or Pentium III. IME, it currently implies a greater understanding of the underlying tech, which many people simply don't have. And looking down on people who don't have that understanding is quite simply an elitist attitude.
If I came across as elitist - and re-reading my comment, perhaps I did - I didn't intend to, so I apologize for that, Swan. As one of the technically initiated, sometimes it's difficult for me to come at this sort of stuff from an uninitiated perspective. I simply have a hard time understanding why others would find that daunting, so I should try harder to.
I will certainly grant that GPU naming conventions have become a total nightmare, CPU I find to be less so - but it also doesn't hurt that the CPU is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's "normal" gaming environments. I tend to upgrade my computer when I finally come across a game that I want to play; but which will not grant me an adequate framerate, presuming maxed settings and 1920x1200. As such I'm still using the same CPU and motherboard that I bought in 2007 - a Core 2 Quad Q6600. The video card I updated about a year and a half ago. The only limitation that practically affects me is that my motherboard doesn't support AHCI, so moving from a velociraptor to a SSD didn't give very much performance gain - but now I've digressed.
My point is, when you buy a processor, try to buy big - $300, maybe $350 - and you should be good for quite a few years. The GPU I find will usually last around 3 years or so with my above requirements. I don't even consider the possibility a game will not work on my system.
63092
Post by: MarsNZ
People who don't get system requirements I have a question for you.
Do you have to ask the pump attendant which octane your car takes every time? Or do you learn what trivial numbers are relevent to your situation and just remember them?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Don't be so smug and obnoxious.
Video cards are NOT obvious.
63092
Post by: MarsNZ
Not everyone is a biochemical engineer either, but they manage.
If I come across as smug and obnoxious because I take a shred of responsibility to know about what I buy, then that must make those that are scared off by a few simple numbers ignorant and lazy. Seriously a 10 second google search yields hundreds of hits of sites that rank video cards, how hard it it to read the box that yours came in and find where it places. Also protip: Consoles contain video cards.
42494
Post by: nomotog
MarsNZ wrote:Not everyone is a biochemical engineer either, but they manage.
If I come across as smug and obnoxious because I take a shred of responsibility to know about what I buy, then that must make those that are scared off by a few simple numbers ignorant and lazy. Seriously a 10 second google search yields hundreds of hits of sites that rank video cards, how hard it it to read the box that yours came in and find where it places. Also protip: Consoles contain video cards.
I have had an easier time with bio chemistry then with video cards.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I don't even know what card is in my laptop, its very easy to find out of course, and I have yet to find a game that I can't play. The 4/5 year ol,d mid range card on my desktop could still manage AAA games (usually on mid/low settings) before I upgraded my system. Basically if you don't buy the cheapest option and its not ancient (relatively speaking) it should run just about anything if you don't mind turning the options down.
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
Hey man, if building computers is your thing, knock yourself out. I hope you enjoy it and that's cool. But I just choose to occupy my mind with other things.
How many players can you get on your computer?
123
Post by: Alpharius
Everyone - please take it down a notch.
RULE #1 reigns supreme, everywhere!
And using terms like "protip" - inadvisable.
Thanks!
21720
Post by: LordofHats
About an hour of reading will teach you everything you need to know about system requirements. A google search to learn how to find what hardware is installed on your computer, a brief tutorial on the jargon (most of which is frankly irrelevant babble for typical gaming needs) a few explanations on how a few youtube videos on how to switch out hardware. It takes little to no effort or skill to learn what the numbers in that "System Requirements" box mean or how you can upgrade a rig to meet them.
If suggesting such a thing is elitist, then our standards for the common man must have dropped pretty low.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 LordofHats wrote:About an hour of reading will teach you everything you need to know about system requirements
No, it won't. It'll take far longer than a mere half-hour to explain the labyrinthine and inane naming and rating schemes for video cards.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The naming schemes are not hard. Not intuitive but not hard:
Previously, I covered the latest cards from AMD, the AMD Radeon HD 6000 series. This time around, I'll be talking about the latest offering by NVIDIA, the GeForce 500 series. Similar to AMD’s HD 6000 series, the GeForce 500 series of graphics cards are 2nd generation DirectX 11 cards, but perform more efficiently and offer better levels of performance compared to the GeForce 400 series. These cards are able to support NVIDIA 3D Vision technology, and generally offer a better choice if you want to view 3D content on your computer. Take note that at the time of writing, the full range of the GeForce 500 series is not yet complete, with the GT 530 and GT 540 not being launched yet. With that in mind, let’s now look at the different performance levels of the cards that have been launched thus far.
One of the latest cards to be launched, and coming in at the bottom of the performance levels is the GeForce GT 520. Cards based on the GeForce GT 520 generally are unable to support modern games that are set at medium settings. But while this is so, getting this card to power your HTPC (Home Theater PC) is a good idea as it consumes little power and is capable of rendering good quality HD graphics. The yet-to-be-launched GT 530 and GT 540 are expected to be within this performance level as well.
For those looking for a generally affordable card that can support modern games at medium to high DX11 settings, then cards based on the GTX 550 Ti would be the best choice. Capable of delivering frame rates of over 30 frames per second, this card should be on your shopping list if you’re a gamer on a budget.
If you need performance, then cards based on the GTX 560 Ti, the GTX 570 and GTX 580 should be in your sights. Capable of supporting modern games at the highest settings, these cards offer some of the best performance one can get from a single GPU card. 3D games are also best played with cards in this range in order to get the best frame rate performance.
Last but not least is the heavyweight from NVIDIA that sports two GPUs, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590. Posing the highest threat to AMD’s Radeon HD 5990, these two monsters offer the best performance any graphics card can offer. Let’s just say that you’re set for at least five years down the road if you do get your hands on a card like the GeForce GTX 590.
As a general summary to my previous posts, you could say that:
1) NVIDIA offers better performance levels out of the box when compared to AMD Radeon cards. They’re also more expensive.
2) AMD cards offer good overclocking performance and are generally cheaper
3) If you’re planning to view 3D content, NVIDIA is an easier choice
And with that, my Understanding Graphics Cards series has come to an end. Hope my posts have given you a better idea on what to look out for when buying a new graphics card.
5 Minutes. I went to google and typed in "understanding geforce cards" and that article is the first thing that pops up and more than adequately shows how the GeForce range of cards is named.
The hardest part about computer hardware is going to be motherboards and power supplies. Graphic cards honestly are easy sauce. It takes a few minutes of one's time to learn the naming conventions used by Nvidia and ATI:
> #60 Mutli-media GPU not intended for gaming (Usually repackaged cards from the previous series however and the 40 and 50 numbered cards are usually the 90 rated cards from the previous series)
#60 Low end gaming GPU
#70-#80 Midrange gaming GPU
#90 High end gaming GPU
It's honestly that simple and Nvidia hasn't changed their naming conventions in nearly a decade.
29408
Post by: Melissia
That does not tell me if my NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti is capable of running on any specific game whenever the game lists an entirely different card as its minimum or recommended requirement. At best, it offers vague and general nonsense without giving any specifics or explaining anything on WHY these things have the names that they have and how I can tell that my card will work for a game.
Let's take Planetside 2 as an example.
How the hell am I supposed to tell whether or not my card (see above) can match PS2's minimums-- which are...
"GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 / AMD Radeon HD 3870 or greater"
The damned article didn't even MENTION any GeForce with four digits in it. What the feth is an 8600 and how does it compare to a GTX 550 Ti, and how the feth does any of this make any sense?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
In all honest someone is either exceedingly dense, or just unwilling to put in any effort if they can't answer the question "will my graphics card run this game". Graphic cards are a simple higher number = higher performance deal. Nvidia muddled that back in 2009 when they launched the 100 series (cause I guess they didn't want to make an GeForce 10000) but it's not that hard to figure out. Just go to wikipedia and type in GeForce. They have a list of every series in order of release and a break down of Nvidia's naming system. If someone can read that and not figure out how it can be applied, I don't think Nvidia's naming scheme is the problem.
I get that people don't want entertainment to be work. That's fine. If you just want to enjoy yourself and not fret over system requirements at all consoles work great for that. But that doesn't make the naming difficult to understand or navigate. It's simply a matter of getting over the initial hurdle of understanding what all the numbers and letters thrown in mean. Once that hurdle is mounted it is an extremely simple task to know if a card will run something.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Except, apparently, when they don't. LordofHats wrote:Just go to wikipedia and type in GeForce. They have a list of every series in order of release and a break down of Nvidia's naming system.
Two bizarre tables which do not actually give very much information and which I cannot actually figure out where the feth to put my own card on. The "Ti" suffix isn't listed anywhere on the chart. The GTX prefix, apparently, doesn't even actually apply accurately to the card that I am using based off of Wikipedia's own page on the 500 series-- to quote, "Although the GTX 550 Ti is a GF116 mainstream chip, Nvidia has chosen to name its new card the GTX 550 Ti, and not the GTS 550." So by the admission of the very fething source you quoted, NVidia defies their own naming schemes for marketing purposes. And then you wonder why I find it so goddamned frustrating. And I still haven't gotten a straight answer on the issue.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I've given you the straight answer. The straight answer is that all you need are the numbers on the card. The last two which identify what the card is intended to do, and whatever number is in front of that number which identifies the series. GTX, GTS, GTO, Ti are just markers thrown in that identify various aspects of specific cards. Car manufacturers do the same thing. For the typical consumer those identifiers are irrelevant (i.e. it doesn't matter to you at all that the GTX 550 Ti uses a GF116 chip. All that matters to you is the 550).
Once you recognize that each cards name basically boils down to <series #><quality #> all you need to know is the order the series was released in which is mostly sequential. If someone wants to know how cards of different series perform relative to each other it's as simple as a 90 from a previous series being generally comparable to the 60 of the next series.
Note: i'm mostly going with Nvidia cause that's what I use but Radeon uses even simpler naming with <series #><market #><quality #>. The biggest complaint that I think can be legitimately leveled against their naming conventions is that they advertise their cards for gaming purposes even when the card isn't designed for gaming i.e. a GeForce 620 or a Radeon 7350 and they don't always make this clear in their marketing.
42494
Post by: nomotog
It can get more complex. If you really want to know, then you have to look at memory, processing power, power use, number of slots, reliability, cooling issues, and now they even have doodads like 3d or physics. It's not simple stuff. I think the hardest part is that you don't even know what you needs will be because you buying for games that haven't even been made.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
If you're the average person who is just trying to maintain their hardware and build a PC that will last, you can get the job done in an afternoon, and it only takes that long because motherboards are a complete pain and budgeting a power supply is takes some time... Unless money is no object but I doubt that works for most people XD
But the graphic card is usually simple as get a card with a big enough number on in its name. It's more complicated this year because the new consoles are gonna launch soon and the minimum PC requirements will probably make a big jump. The bright side there though is that a 790 when it comes out will probably last 6+ years.
16387
Post by: Manchu
"PC gaming isn't elitist and anyone who disagrees is dense, lazy, irresponsible, and should stick to consoles."
LOL great argument.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I see the strawman has come to play.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Manchu wrote:Yep, it just comes down to what/how you like to play.
Not just that, but it comes down to who you play with as well.
I know that if I didn't have a good core of people to play with on the 360--I would likely not get any use out of it and would probably be playing MMOs or PC games far more often.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
32-64 depending on the game.
16387
Post by: Manchu
That won't work, I'm afraid, when the evidence is posted here for all to see.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Manchu wrote:That won't work, I'm afraid, when the evidence is posted here for all to see.
"PC gaming isn't elitist and anyone who disagrees is dense, lazy, irresponsible, and should stick to consoles."
And I suppose it is easier to make stuff up than read what's actually said.
Some people enjoy messing around with hardware. It's really the only reason Nvidia and ATI continue to release a new card series every year even though there's not much of a market need for it. other people just want to play a game. Consoles work great for that. It's a major reason for their success over PC's in the early 2000's. That's not accusing people of being lazy it's realizing that they have different priorities. PC gaming involves a little more effort than console gaming, i.e. work. Not everyone wants to spend their free time working if it's not something they can enjoy or deal with.
Never said that was irresponsible or that they should just stick to consoles. But complaining that the naming scheme used by Nvidia or Radeon is hard to understand is being dense. It doesn't take that long to decipher their system as unintuitive as they make it. There are entire websites that break these things down. Those tables Mel says are vague and tell her nothing are honestly the most laymen's terms graphics cards can be laid out in. And it's laid out that way because it's all the average consumer needs to know. The 550 in GTX 550 Ti is all that matters for her purposes. The GTX is meaningless and the Ti is meaningless unless she wants to go screwing around in the BIOS. We can talk about shaders, clock speed, processing clusters, and multistreaming ability, but none of that really matters. I don't need to know how a plane works to ride in one and likewise I don't need to know exactly how a GPU works to use one. Those numbers are labeled onto the cards so that non-tech genius' can find a card to meet their purposes. Nvidia in particular does a bad job at it because they slap all that crap next to the number but the number is still sitting there in plain sight.
EDIT: The thing you'll likely see most overlooked on the internet when it comes to GPU's isn't even the GPU's really but power supplies. high end gaming GPU's use 12 volt rails, and some low end commerical PC's use power supplies that have no 12 volt rails (I'm shaking my fist angrily at Dell).
12313
Post by: Ouze
LordofHats wrote:In all honest someone is either exceedingly dense, or just unwilling to put in any effort if they can't answer the question "will my graphics card run this game". Graphic cards are a simple higher number = higher performance deal. Nvidia muddled that back in 2009 when they launched the 100 series (cause I guess they didn't want to make an GeForce 10000) but it's not that hard to figure out. Just go to wikipedia and type in GeForce. They have a list of every series in order of release and a break down of Nvidia's naming system. If someone can read that and not figure out how it can be applied, I don't think Nvidia's naming scheme is the problem.
So, by the chart you posted earlier, and what you said here, the Geforce GT 620 should be significantly better then the Geforce GT 520? Both of which will offer better performance, then, say a 480 GTX?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Ouze wrote: LordofHats wrote:In all honest someone is either exceedingly dense, or just unwilling to put in any effort if they can't answer the question "will my graphics card run this game". Graphic cards are a simple higher number = higher performance deal. Nvidia muddled that back in 2009 when they launched the 100 series (cause I guess they didn't want to make an GeForce 10000) but it's not that hard to figure out. Just go to wikipedia and type in GeForce. They have a list of every series in order of release and a break down of Nvidia's naming system. If someone can read that and not figure out how it can be applied, I don't think Nvidia's naming scheme is the problem.
So, by the chart you posted earlier, and what you said here, the Geforce GT 620 should be significantly better then the Geforce GT 520? Both of which will offer better performance, then, say a 480 GTX?
LordofHats wrote:The biggest complaint that I think can be legitimately leveled against their naming conventions is that they advertise their cards for gaming purposes even when the card isn't designed for gaming i.e. a GeForce 620 or a Radeon 7350 and they don't always make this clear in their marketing.
Cause people only read so much before they have to comment. I guess I just expect people to be able to use their brains too much. it's not like a card ending in 20 is clearly labeled by the table as HTPC, and a card ending in 80 is labeled something else, suggesting that those numbers are being applied to cards with different capabilities or anything. That would just be too confusing.
12313
Post by: Ouze
You spent 3 posts explaining how simple it was, and how dense you'd have to be to not get it. You laid it out in black and white: you don't need the numbers before and after; the higher number is better. It's simply not complicated!
Geforce GT 620 is better then Geforce GT 520, and both are better then 480 GTX, yes?
Forget the 480, then. Which is better - Geforce GT 620 or Geforce GT 520?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I suspect we both know the cards are virtually identical. Congratulations. We both know that Nvidia sometimes releases GPU's that perform at the same level or worse than previous cards at the same product level. Lets totally focus on that instead of the general trend.
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
Sorry, should have clarified - how many players in the same room?
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, we don't. Answer the fething question. Jegus this is just sad. You really ARE an elitist.
12313
Post by: Ouze
We do, actually. The point I was making is that Nvidia's naming scheme is inherently confusing, and this
LordofHats wrote: If someone can read that and not figure out how it can be applied, I don't think Nvidia's naming scheme is the problem.
is not true. Nvidia's own statements are contrary to this. They simply don't follow that chart when it suits them, period.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I didn't know that, thus "we" didn't know it 
42494
Post by: nomotog
You know what bugs me. We don't have a big PC open world game. I can see a open world game really benefiting from the extra ram and hard drive on the PC.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
nomotog wrote:You know what bugs me. We don't have a big PC open world game. I can see a open world game really benefiting from the extra ram and hard drive on the PC.
Minecraft, GTA, Saint's Row, Skyrim... ...either you're trolling or have been living under a rock Oo
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Ouze wrote:We do, actually. The point I was making is that Nvidia's naming scheme is inherently confusing, and this
LordofHats wrote: If someone can read that and not figure out how it can be applied, I don't think Nvidia's naming scheme is the problem.
is not true. Nvidia's own statements are contrary to this. They simply don't follow that chart when it suits them, period.
Nvidia's done it several times in the past (one of the most notable being the GeForce 5000 series, which had a few cards that performed worse than the 2 year old 3000's) but unless we're now going to accept that the presence of 1 rich black man means African American's are not generally poorer than whites in the US, you're conflating a single case of the scheme being untrue to it being untrue in all cases (not that Nvidia doesn't do this about once or twice every three-four years). But I guess if that works for you. Lets use the silly cards that aren't even capable of running high end 3d graphics to prove that we can never use their naming scheme for anything... except when they can generally be relied upon to be representative of performance but why let reality effect our little delusions of the world. It's not like the 690 has 1000 more transitors, 50% larger bus, and twice the fill rate of a 590 or anything. Those numbers are obviously meaningless just because Nvidia's been gouging people blind with their low end HTPC cards since the late 90's.
No, we don't. Answer the fething question.
Jegus this is just sad. You really ARE an elitist.
So, Ouze asks a question, I answer the question, and you then claim I'm not answering the question? That's kind of the definition of dense.
Still not seeing how that's elitist though. It's pretty normal for some people to know things other people don't know (I don't really know anything about chemistry, but I think you do). I guess we're all elitists, on the inside.
12313
Post by: Ouze
LordofHats wrote:Nvidia's done it several times in the past (one of the most notable being the GeForce 5000 series, which had a few cards that performed worse than the 2 year old 3000's) but unless we're now going to accept that the presence of 1 rich black man means African American's are not generally poorer than whites in the US, you're conflating a single case of the scheme being untrue to it being untrue in all cases (not that Nvidia doesn't do this about once or twice every three-four years). But I guess if that works for you. Lets use the silly cards that aren't even capable of running high end 3d graphics to prove that we can never use their naming scheme for anything...
I didn't say that. You are making a strawman of my argument and then pretending that is what I said. What I said was that GPU naming schemes are somewhat inconsistent, and that I could understand why it's difficult for people to understand them. I'm not the one insisting in speaking in total black and white statements, such as "Graphic cards are a simple higher number = higher performance deal. " - you are, and are doing so even why admitting things like they have rebranded their cards several times in the past. It's not one example, the last one was a batch of like 6 different cards. Which you know, but are discarding it anyway because... whatever.
In any event, this is a stupid thread now where people are trying to show off, for whatever reason, how big of a jerk they can be with needlessly abrasive language and invective because... well, I'm not sure about that either.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ouze wrote:because... well, I'm not sure about that either.
Because they're definitely not elitists! Don't be dense!
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Ouze wrote:What I said was that GPU naming schemes are somewhat inconsistent,
Then why are we arguing? Recognizing that they are at times inconsistent isn't the same thing as them not being generally reliable which has been my entire point. My hope was that people might catch on to what is a fairly simple naming scheme but rather than just accept that the scheme itself is simple we're muddling everything down with specific cards and market scams, something that the average consumer doesn't need to worry about. The only people who'd need to worry about it are hardware enthusiasts cause they're the only ones buying a new grapics card every year which I doubt most people want to do if they just want to play games. Getting a 550 now, and running with it until minimum requirements shift and then getting a 850 or w/e the new hardware happens to be, is a very simple purchasing decision and a reliable hardware upgrade.
It's not difficult and it's not hard. They don't make it easy but it's not calculus.
It's not one example, the last one was a batch of like 6 different cards. Which you know, but are discarding it anyway because... whatever.
And we're discarding that this practice is almost exclusive to their lower end lines for whatever reason? No one should be buying a 610, or one of the multitude of 630's they're current selling to play the latest Bioshock game (not that I don't think Nvidia doesn't hope people make that mistake).
42494
Post by: nomotog
 Sigvatr wrote:nomotog wrote:You know what bugs me. We don't have a big PC open world game. I can see a open world game really benefiting from the extra ram and hard drive on the PC.
Minecraft, GTA, Saint's Row, Skyrim...
...either you're trolling or have been living under a rock Oo
Multiple platform games don't count because they can't really take advantage of the PC.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Sorry, but I've got to side with LordofHats. And if the best rebuttal you've got is "You're an elitist!" then you need to find a better rebuttal (you should know better Mr. Mod Manchu).
I've been out of the game for years and am slowly easing myself back into the concept of PC gaming with a new PC I hope to get in the next couple of months. It doesn't take much to figure out what graphics cards to get. You can even do the most basic thing in the world and go "Sort by price - high to low" and generally that'll show you what's at the top and what's not.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm not rebutting anything. The position is its own rebuttal.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Manchu wrote:I'm not rebutting anything. The position is its own rebuttal.
It is easier to make up a position than to bother reading someone's actual position.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:I'm not rebutting anything. The position is its own rebuttal.
Holy dismissive posting, batman! As someone who knows very little about the current ins and outs of PC gaming, Google and talking to people who know about such matters allowed me to understand the whole "what video card to buy mystery" quite easily.
Anyway, to adress the OP, I was very big into PC gaming back in the day. I recall the day that I had saved enough money to put 16 megs of RAM into my PC so that I could run Doom 2! I was exclusively console for over a decade, mainly after I joined the Marines and moving around so much made consoles less of a hassle, but recently I've been picking up more and more games for the PC (Starcraft was a major influence here). The point being: I don't think any type of gaming is better or worse, it all boils down to personal preference.
16387
Post by: Manchu
How convenient any given information is to come by is irrelevant. The act of disparaging those who do not possess whatever knowledge that you do is elitist all the same. Indeed, constant appeal to the alleged simplicity of obtaining said information just emphasizes the elitism by further disparaging those who don't possess it. As we have seen ITT, the argument that the information is easy to find and learn has been used to characterize those who don't possess it as dense, lazy, and irresponsible.
It really could not be any clearer why PC gamers, who often engage in this very behavior, have a reputation for being elitist.
42494
Post by: nomotog
There is a reason for the reputation. Not everyone who plays PC games is a dismissive snob, but they are very noticeable when they show up.
15335
Post by: Spyder68
I guess i dont get it..
Everytime on this forum that a thread like this comes up..
I see more Console gamers calling PC gamers elitists than any PC gamer saying much.
And to add to the issue of people not having a clue if their PC can run a game or not...
There are many ways to do this.. And they are extremly easy.. Don't try to make it to complicated.
For Example
This website
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Spyder68 wrote:I see more Console gamers calling PC gamers elitists than any PC gamer saying much.
You will find ITT many posts -- even including your own -- describing why the knowledge associated with PC gaming is accessible ... despite whatever people who do not possess that knowledge may claim. Whether the information is or is not accessible is immaterial to the act of criticizing people for not possessing it. There is a difference between saying "go to X site for that information" or "I can explain that to you and answer your questions" on the one hand and saying "that is so easy to find that only someone who is lazy, dense, and/or irresponsible would claim not to know it." The first category of example is not at issue; no one is claiming all PC gamers are elitists all the time. The second category is at issue because it has come up ITT, paradoxically, as an argument for why PC gamers are not elitists.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Spyder68 wrote:I guess i dont get it.. Everytime on this forum that a thread like this comes up.. I see more Console gamers calling PC gamers elitists than any PC gamer saying much.
There is literally not an outright example of this in all 4 pages. Manchu made a jokey aside but that is the closest . Your point is invalid. EDIT
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yep. This only came up because of the simple and true distinction between console gaming and PC gaming being that PC gaming can be about performance, and therefore technical knowledge, while console gaming simply can't (at this time).
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Manchu wrote:seen ITT, the argument that the information is easy to find and learn has been used to characterize those who don't possess it as dense, lazy, and irresponsible.
That's your crazy made up position not mine. If someone doesn't know how to read the system requirements box, that's not dense, lazy, or irresponsible. I don't disparage anyone for simply thinking " wtf is all this. Screw it where's the PS3 section." But they are being dense if they than ask how to tell one graphics card from another and upon having it explained (however shoddily) continue to say it's too hard is being dense because it isn't that hard. If someone doesn't have technical knowledge of PC hardware they're going to have to operate using rules of thumb or take the time to obtain technical knowledge. But there's only so much time in one's day and some people don't want to spend their time learning all the parts of graphics card and why they matter, which isn't lazy (not in a bad way anyhow).
The rule of thumb for a graphics card is that a higher number is better (more expensive is better kinda works too). It's a very simple rule and yet people in this thread call me an elitist for even suggesting something so straight forward and calling it simple. Ask the internet is an even simpler and more universal rule but apparently that's hard too? So when people show a inability to apply such a simple rule, I call it dense and somehow I'm also calling them lazy and irresponsible. If that's all it takes to be an elitist than I guess I'll just go find a t-shirt or something.
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, it's your words.
See here: LordofHats wrote:someone is either exceedingly dense, or just unwilling to put in any effort if they can't answer the question "will my graphics card run this game"
You are an elitist, and frankly, it's entirely uncalled for.
I built my own fething computer seven years ago-- went through metric [Mod Edit - careful with the language please! -Thanks! Alpharius] of research to make sure it'd last a long, long time. And it did. But that's the thing-- even today, when I ask questions like "will this work", I usually get at leats three different answers.
You've given me four pseudo-answers in this thread yourself. No straight answer.
And yet you have the gall to call ME lazy.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I plugged in my PC for the first time in 5 years a few weeks ago after hearing about the new xbox and blew up (quite literally) the PSU.
When I get around to fixing it I will be going back to PC gaming for the first time (other than Kerbal and things like that) in about 8 years after sticking with my xbox/360 in the interim.
Some of the new DRM and content hosting on the next get consoles has really turned me off the idea of getting one. Plus with a PC I can install fan made mods and extras for games for nothing, rather than having to stick with the boring DLC and paying for it too...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:
See here: LordofHats wrote:someone is either exceedingly dense, or just unwilling to put in any effort if they can't answer the question "will my graphics card run this game"
You are an elitist, and frankly, it's entirely uncalled for.
I built my own fething computer seven years ago-- went through metric fucktons of research to make sure it'd last a long, long time. And it did. But that's the thing-- even today, when I ask questions like "will this work", I usually get at leats three different answers.
You've given me four pseudo-answers in this thread yourself. No straight answer.
And yet you have the gall to call ME lazy.
I built my computer too (I've even rebuilt it when the power supply died and again when I got sick of my terrible motherboard). I linked an article that explained an entire card series and what each one does (and there are always articles) and broke down how I'd approach Nvidia cards. A Wiki page that explains the scheme used in the names, and stated that you don't have to worry about the GTX prefix or the Ti suffix because they don't matter, and you still say it's confusing to figure out a graphics card.
That's the most layman's way to explain this subject but it's still too hard apparently (other than cutting off their suffix and prefix's I don't think there's even an easier way for Nvidia to name their products). Forgive me for calling a reaction what it is. If that's elitist then I guess I'm elitist but that's a pretty bone headed way to define elitist.
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, you didn't. You linked to an incoherent rant that never said anything definitive. and only spoke in vaguaries. Never actually once answered my fething question.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:No, you didn't. You linked to an incoherent rant that never said anything definitive. and only spoke in vaguaries.
Never actually once answered my fething question.
Really? So I can link this article:
Previously, I covered the latest cards from AMD, the AMD Radeon HD 6000 series. This time around, I'll be talking about the latest offering by NVIDIA, the GeForce 500 series. Similar to AMD’s HD 6000 series, the GeForce 500 series of graphics cards are 2nd generation DirectX 11 cards, but perform more efficiently and offer better levels of performance compared to the GeForce 400 series. These cards are able to support NVIDIA 3D Vision technology, and generally offer a better choice if you want to view 3D content on your computer. Take note that at the time of writing, the full range of the GeForce 500 series is not yet complete, with the GT 530 and GT 540 not being launched yet. With that in mind, let’s now look at the different performance levels of the cards that have been launched thus far.
One of the latest cards to be launched, and coming in at the bottom of the performance levels is the GeForce GT 520. Cards based on the GeForce GT 520 generally are unable to support modern games that are set at medium settings. But while this is so, getting this card to power your HTPC (Home Theater PC) is a good idea as it consumes little power and is capable of rendering good quality HD graphics. The yet-to-be-launched GT 530 and GT 540 are expected to be within this performance level as well.
For those looking for a generally affordable card that can support modern games at medium to high DX11 settings, then cards based on the GTX 550 Ti would be the best choice. Capable of delivering frame rates of over 30 frames per second, this card should be on your shopping list if you’re a gamer on a budget.
If you need performance, then cards based on the GTX 560 Ti, the GTX 570 and GTX 580 should be in your sights. Capable of supporting modern games at the highest settings, these cards offer some of the best performance one can get from a single GPU card. 3D games are also best played with cards in this range in order to get the best frame rate performance.
Last but not least is the heavyweight from NVIDIA that sports two GPUs, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590. Posing the highest threat to AMD’s Radeon HD 5990, these two monsters offer the best performance any graphics card can offer. Let’s just say that you’re set for at least five years down the road if you do get your hands on a card like the GeForce GTX 590.
As a general summary to my previous posts, you could say that:
1) NVIDIA offers better performance levels out of the box when compared to AMD Radeon cards. They’re also more expensive.
2) AMD cards offer good overclocking performance and are generally cheaper
3) If you’re planning to view 3D content, NVIDIA is an easier choice
And with that, my Understanding Graphics Cards series has come to an end. Hope my posts have given you a better idea on what to look out for when buying a new graphics card.
Which spends most of it's time explaining the 500 series cards and what kind of performance can be expected from each one, and it's a vague incoherent rant? You have a bizarre definition of elitist and an even more bizarre definition of incoherent rant.
9699
Post by: Deathklaat
PC gaming hasn't been dead, nor will it be going away any time soon.
You have to realize that consoles are made for the masses.
Few people remember that Call of Duty was originally a mod for the PC game Half-Life
They use benchmark specs which makes it easier in a sence* for developers to create their game as they do not have to worry about a wide range of system specs. This also makes it easier for the consumer who doesn't want to keep up with the ever changing PC technology. It is pretty easy to console game, you buy your system and enjoy it untill the next one is available, nothing to upgrade other than a hard drive.
*the challenge of console development comes with multi-platform games as they have to be able to work with each system's specs to create a quality game.
There have been some really good games that have only been available for the PC and not for the console and the opposite as well. It really comes down to developer preference and how much of the market they can reach. Another facet of the whole development process is the market share breakdown of consoles, how many PS3 are there vs 360 etc. This is why there are single platform games, by having a set of exclusive games playform developers try to bank on the popularity of the games or franchise to create more sales of their platform and increase their % of the console market.
I have been seeing less and less indy games for consoles than i used to see back around the time of the PS1, i imagine part of the reason you see more indy games on the PC is that they would have less licensing fees than a console would.
and as for the question of "how many people can play on a PC at the same time?" its getting closer to being the same as consoles. I say that because in the growing trend from the Xbox to the 360 and the PS2 to PS3 that fewer and fewer games support co-op, split-screen or any offline multiplayer play. Need for Speed an Burnout completely dropped their split-screen play, how many new FPS are single player with only online multiplayer?
With a push for online play why should i even bother with a console? Xbox live charges me to use their online service, many PC games have free hosted servers. Console online multiplayer suports less players than PC games, in fact most consoles are just getting to player levels that PC games have been at for years. Now we have PC games like Planetside 2 that shatter the multiplayer boundary.
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
One reason I enjoy console gaming is that its a group activity me and my family can do.
Playing on a computer is generally a single-person experience (like reading these forums is now), as is when my wife's on her iphone and the kids on their ipads.
I hate that - I'd rather we be playing a board game or a console game - something that allows four players.
Computer monitors are too small for us to huddle around but if there's any good PC games I'm overlooking, I'm up for suggestions.
55071
Post by: Zinderneuf
It'll never beat tabletop gaming. Get off my lawn you kids.
|
|
