Or an "and" (damn comma splices...).BloodSquirrel said:
That's "dissecting". Your argument is invalid.BloodSquirrel said:
(I can play this game...)
Crytek: PCs Are a Generation Ahead of Consoles
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
(I can play this game...)
If it wasn't heading that direction, Sony and Microsoft wouldn't have bothered with Move and Kinect.lostzombies.com said:
Hmm .NEt framework is a virtual machine (software CPU emulation) so nothing to do with the motherboard.lacktheknack said:
Sounds like your problem had something to do with the Securom protection
Oh I know, I'm sure my Steam library now outnumbers the boxed titles in my drawer and on my shelf. Also not forgetting Impulse and GOG.com. What I'm saying is that Crytek don't seem to understand that most people would rather spend £10-£40 on a console game that is pretty much guaranteed to not crash or otherwise bug out than £30 on a PC game and then however much else for the upgrades necessary for better-than-sluggish performance. Yes, you can turn the fancy visuals down but personally, I'd much prefer the upcoming Witcher 2 on PS3 for example, for the aforementioned peace of mind.Ultratwinkie said:
Besides, it's easy for the Crytek CEO to say things like 'all you need to do is invest in a decent gaming PC' from where he's sitting; he probably doesn't need to economise like the rest of us.
They say that you make no money off pc retail sales but no one has released digital retail sales.
We have no idea how much money Valve are making with steam or how much the GoG or D2D guys make either.
I think it's a lot.
While this article may be a bit fanboyish towards P.C it is true. My pc was more powerful than a PS3 the day they were released and I haven't spend a fortune on mine.
We have no idea how much money Valve are making with steam or how much the GoG or D2D guys make either.
I think it's a lot.
While this article may be a bit fanboyish towards P.C it is true. My pc was more powerful than a PS3 the day they were released and I haven't spend a fortune on mine.
I don't see why everyone seems to want the downfall of consoles. Consoles are making gaming mainstream, which is a GOOD THING.
PCs are more powerful than consoles, they're just really expensive in comparison, plus you have to worry about the upkeep of it (as far as making sure your parts are current enough). Sometimes it's a lot easier to buy a console and know without a doubt what games will work on said console. However, PCs also have mods, which can make a game last much longer than originally intended.
Basically, both have their positives and negatives. We really shouldn't HOPE for either to die, unless you want a huge chunk of gaming profits to just evaporate.
PCs are more powerful than consoles, they're just really expensive in comparison, plus you have to worry about the upkeep of it (as far as making sure your parts are current enough). Sometimes it's a lot easier to buy a console and know without a doubt what games will work on said console. However, PCs also have mods, which can make a game last much longer than originally intended.
Basically, both have their positives and negatives. We really shouldn't HOPE for either to die, unless you want a huge chunk of gaming profits to just evaporate.
Ok, 2 points here:
1. PC will ALWAYS be ahead of consoles because you can't upgrade just one part of a console. With the PC, you can upgrade ram, storage, video, cpu incrementally instead of all at once. This means less impact on the wallet. Nobody would buy a brand new console for $500 every 2 years.
2. PC users only have themselves to blame for the focus on the console. Piracy has taken away just about any chance at PC being a profitable platform for developers.
1. PC will ALWAYS be ahead of consoles because you can't upgrade just one part of a console. With the PC, you can upgrade ram, storage, video, cpu incrementally instead of all at once. This means less impact on the wallet. Nobody would buy a brand new console for $500 every 2 years.
2. PC users only have themselves to blame for the focus on the console. Piracy has taken away just about any chance at PC being a profitable platform for developers.
Nope- you actually have to have better Grammar. You made a mistake in the very sentence you were trying to call me out with, which is an instant loss. You've also just used an ellipses improperly.lacktheknack said:
Hmm... I'd say someone needs to make a tool similar to "Can you run it?", with a few important differences:
0. It needs to come standard on all new computers/OS's/PC games. It should be opt-out (systemwide opt-out!), and gather no user data but graphics settings, average FPS, and PC configuration.
What it will do is as follows:
1. It needs to compile user data from people running the same configuration who've tested that game, and make an analysis of their final configuration/framerate. Through some data wrangling, it should be possible to come up with an accurate reading of how the game will perform on a certain brand of computer. Rough estimates (such as "Can you run it?" uses, as well as performance on similar (but not identical) hardware configurations) would be factored into the final estimate.
2. It should express this data in terms of a graph for people buying new computers, with ten or twenty games representing "quality points" on the graph. It should list whether that computer can play the game in question, and at what detail level. (In this case, "playable" would equate to between thirty and sixty FPS) This will be a valuable service for PC vendors, as it will provide the customer with hard, solid data for whether the computer will fit his needs (for new computers, this will be advantageous, as older computers will be more obviously phased out!)
3. It should allow a potential buyer on a digital download service (or online store) to see how well a game is liable to perform on his platform before he buys it. This will cut down massively on tech support costs, and have little to no appreciable impact on sales (as for every consumer who declines to buy it based on the knowledge that it won't work, another will agree based on the knowledge that it will!).
As far as my limited analysis can tell, this would be:
* Good for the PC maker, as it demonstrates exactly how well their top-of-the-line computers will perform, as well as demonstrating the value of an upgrade
* Good for the game developer, as it would cut down on tech support needs
* Good for the consumer, as it would eliminate the lack of assurance that comes with new PC or videogame purchases.
This is what MS GFWL should have been, but isn't. Now I'm just waiting for Valve to make it.
0. It needs to come standard on all new computers/OS's/PC games. It should be opt-out (systemwide opt-out!), and gather no user data but graphics settings, average FPS, and PC configuration.
What it will do is as follows:
1. It needs to compile user data from people running the same configuration who've tested that game, and make an analysis of their final configuration/framerate. Through some data wrangling, it should be possible to come up with an accurate reading of how the game will perform on a certain brand of computer. Rough estimates (such as "Can you run it?" uses, as well as performance on similar (but not identical) hardware configurations) would be factored into the final estimate.
2. It should express this data in terms of a graph for people buying new computers, with ten or twenty games representing "quality points" on the graph. It should list whether that computer can play the game in question, and at what detail level. (In this case, "playable" would equate to between thirty and sixty FPS) This will be a valuable service for PC vendors, as it will provide the customer with hard, solid data for whether the computer will fit his needs (for new computers, this will be advantageous, as older computers will be more obviously phased out!)
3. It should allow a potential buyer on a digital download service (or online store) to see how well a game is liable to perform on his platform before he buys it. This will cut down massively on tech support costs, and have little to no appreciable impact on sales (as for every consumer who declines to buy it based on the knowledge that it won't work, another will agree based on the knowledge that it will!).
As far as my limited analysis can tell, this would be:
* Good for the PC maker, as it demonstrates exactly how well their top-of-the-line computers will perform, as well as demonstrating the value of an upgrade
* Good for the game developer, as it would cut down on tech support needs
* Good for the consumer, as it would eliminate the lack of assurance that comes with new PC or videogame purchases.
This is what MS GFWL should have been, but isn't. Now I'm just waiting for Valve to make it.
Look, in my defense, nobody informed me of their dietary habits. It just looked so hungry.Ultratwinkie said: