PC is "Far Superior" to Next-Gen Consoles, Says Nvidia

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
PC is "Far Superior" to Next-Gen Consoles, Says Nvidia



According to Nvidia's Matt Wright, those looking for the best gaming experience this coming generation should get a PC.

The Xbox One and PS4 are now out in the wilds, perhaps being clawed over by packs of ravenous Black Friday shoppers as we speak. However, in the wake of the new console launch, graphics card maker Nvidia wants to make sure players don't forget about the other gaming system - no, not the Wii U, the PC. "Enthusiast players want the ultimate games system, and that is the PC," said Matt Wright, consumer sales manager for Nvidia. Wright's comments come as Nvidia is launching small, form-factor PCs. Wright encourages those considering a next generation console to keep those in mind while making their decision. "We are proposing small form-factor PCs to be a viable alternative to the next-gen consoles," he said in an interview with MCV. "The PC platform is far superior to any console when it comes to gaming, plus you get all the extra functionality that a computer brings."

The buzz for smaller, more user-friendly "living room PCs" increased earlier this year with the official announcement of Valve's Steam Machines. A prototype Steam Machine <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129983-iBuyPower-Reveals-Its-First-Retail-Steam-Machine-Prototype>was just revealed a few days ago by manufacturer iBuyPower. The influence of Steam is certainly not lost on Wright. "Steam now has more users than Xbox Live. There is a whole new generation who grew up playing on PC with titles like Minecraft or World of Tanks. There's a huge community who love playing their games on PC," he said.

Source: <a href=http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/nvidia-pc-far-superior-to-next-gen-consoles/0125115>MCV via <a href=http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/29/5156680/pc-is-superior-to-ps4-and-xbox-one-says-nvidia>Polygon

Permalink
 

Eiv

New member
Oct 17, 2008
376
0
0
Never a truer word has been said on this site. Amen to that man.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
Well it's entirely predictable that Nvidia would say something like this; not least because.. haven't they come out and said it before in the not-too-distant past?
 

songnar

Modulator
Oct 26, 2008
229
0
0
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.

In terms of gaming - a standardized product like the consoles or, soon, the Steam Box is much easier to plan for, requires less testing across the dozens of possible hardware combinations and is, thus, somewhat easier to plan for.

I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.
 

Auberon

New member
Aug 29, 2012
467
0
0
Just tell the developers to reverse current mentality to PC-first mentality, and it might work. But 90% of them probably don't even think of the difference between KB+M and controller, which can produce nigh-unplayable ports.
 

ohnoitsabear

New member
Feb 15, 2011
1,236
0
0
Well it really isn't surprising that Nvidia is saying this, considering Nvidia directly benefits from people gaming on pcs, plus all of the new consoles are using AMD cards.

Nvidia talking about how PCs are awesome really isn't news.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
Yes, nVidia, the PC is superior, but not exactly for the reasons you gave.

The PC is better because its cheaper in the long run, it is a requirement in today's world anyway and because of its greater library, backwards compatibility and modding.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
I think this is another part of Nvidia's PR war to help convince themselves that abandoning the console market to AMD was a good idea.

Time will tell, with the way online functionality is going I can see the gap between consoles and PC getting ever narrower from a functionality standpoint (enjoy you DRM console players!), but whether that translates to fewer or more consoles remains to be seen.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
Uh, of course they'll say PC is superior to consoles, when the consoles all use AMD chips. I mean, I agree (at least, strictly on a tech standpoint), but I don't believe for a second NVIDIA's statement has any reason but to subtly slam AMD.

P.S. Thanks
 

lancar

New member
Aug 11, 2009
428
0
0
He's right, of course. The PC has the upper hand in pretty much every aspect apart from the initial pricetag.
However, it might be easy to forget that people who own consoles are extremely likely to own a PC as well. And PC's grow old and need renewals every now and again, too. The choice doesn't quite exactly lie between getting a PC or a console to get games on. It lies between getting a better PC than you would otherwise, or a new console.

The cost for a PC doesn't go away for a household buying a console, but the opposite is true. A console is a pure luxury item, while a PC is not.
With that in mind, the difference in cost for the household instead lies between the cost of a high-end PC minus the cost of a low-end one, vs a console.

And of course PC games are much cheaper than their console brethrens, but, y'know... details.
 

ike42

New member
Feb 25, 2009
226
0
0
And of course none of this talk from Nvidia has anything to do with both the Xbone and the PS4 being built on ATI architecture...
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
ERMAGHERD, NVIDIA RR STUPID, MY MICROWAVE OVEN IS BEST TO PLAY COD GHOSTS WITH.

To be fair, yes, my microwave is the best experience I've had with CoD Ghosts.

Back on topic: what nVidia said is pointless, and the title should be changed as it seems a bit bait-y.

They only said that PCs are way more powerful than next gen consoles, which is true, but the title might mislead people.

Off topic gripe: WHY WONT UBISOFT PATCH AC IV ALREADY, FFS.

I BOUGHT A FUCKING 670 LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND AC IV DOESNT EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD, YET MY CARD STRUGGLES TO RUN IT ABOVE 30 FPS ON MAX.

WHAT THE FUCK MAN.

It feels like next gen ports are following a trend of being badly optimised.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
To be honest, I can nwever tell the damn difference in gameplay or graphics anyway. My PC copy of Bioshock Infinite looked and felt the same as my mates 360 version. My PC version of Borderlands 2 looked and felt the same as my PS3 copy. My Assassins Creed 3 PC copy wouldnt even fucking play, but my PS3 copy had no problems.

It all feels the same to me to be honest. The only difference I notice between my PC and my consoles is that my back hurts a lot less when playing the latter....
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
lancar said:
He's right, of course. The PC has the upper hand in pretty much every aspect apart from the initial pricetag.
However, it might be easy to forget that people who own consoles are extremely likely to own a PC as well. And PC's grow old and need renewals every now and again, too. The choice doesn't quite exactly lie between getting a PC or a console to get games on. It lies between getting a better PC than you would otherwise, or a new console.

The cost for a PC doesn't go away for a household buying a console, but the opposite is true. A console is a pure luxury item, while a PC is not.
With that in mind, the difference in cost for the household instead lies between the cost of a high-end PC minus the cost of a low-end one, vs a console.

And of course PC games are much cheaper than their console brethrens, but, y'know... details.
^ This.

I am reminded of MovieBob saying how PCs will become redundant in the coming years, and yet, it has had a massive surge in popularity, hell, a lot of dedicated gamers are snapping up gaming pcs instead of consoles.
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
True, but funny how Nvidia was not so eager to admit it when it was their cards inside the overpriced, oversized gameboys they were selling for the past 7 years.
 

Ushiromiya Battler

Oddly satisfied
Feb 7, 2010
601
0
0
Akichi Daikashima said:
erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
ERMAGHERD, NVIDIA RR STUPID, MY MICROWAVE OVEN IS BEST TO PLAY COD GHOSTS WITH.

To be fair, yes, my microwave is the best experience I've had with CoD Ghosts.

Back on topic: what nVidia said is pointless, and the title should be changed as it seems a bit bait-y.

They only said that PCs are way more powerful than next gen consoles, which is true, but the title might mislead people.

Off topic gripe: WHY WONT UBISOFT PATCH AC IV ALREADY, FFS.

I BOUGHT A FUCKING 670 LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND AC IV DOESNT EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD, YET MY CARD STRUGGLES TO RUN IT ABOVE 30 FPS ON MAX.

WHAT THE FUCK MAN.

It feels like next gen ports are following a trend of being badly optimised.
Pssstt, get 3D3Overrider and force vsync and triple buffering.
Pretty much solves the under 30fps issue on every pc.

OT:
Wow, I never knew Nvidia, I never knew....
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
ERMAGHERD, NVIDIA RR STUPID, MY MICROWAVE OVEN IS BEST TO PLAY COD GHOSTS WITH.

To be fair, yes, my microwave is the best experience I've had with CoD Ghosts.

Back on topic: what nVidia said is pointless, and the title should be changed as it seems a bit bait-y.

They only said that PCs are way more powerful than next gen consoles, which is true, but the title might mislead people.

Off topic gripe: WHY WONT UBISOFT PATCH AC IV ALREADY, FFS.

I BOUGHT A FUCKING 670 LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND AC IV DOESNT EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD, YET MY CARD STRUGGLES TO RUN IT ABOVE 30 FPS ON MAX.

WHAT THE FUCK MAN.

It feels like next gen ports are following a trend of being badly optimised.
Pssstt, get 3D3Overrider and force vsync and triple buffering.
Pretty much solves the under 30fps issue on every pc.

OT:
Wow, I never knew Nvidia, I never knew....
Vsync is off.

I always turn it off when investigating how well the game can run on my pc.

And when on max, its at 30-40 fps when I am just exploring an island, on ship battles it could very well drop to like, 20.

I don't play it on max, but the fact that I can't at a decent framerate pisses me off, as my card more than meets the recommended requirements, and can run Far Cry 3 on Max at a constant 60fps.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Akichi Daikashima said:
lancar said:
He's right, of course. The PC has the upper hand in pretty much every aspect apart from the initial pricetag.
However, it might be easy to forget that people who own consoles are extremely likely to own a PC as well. And PC's grow old and need renewals every now and again, too. The choice doesn't quite exactly lie between getting a PC or a console to get games on. It lies between getting a better PC than you would otherwise, or a new console.

The cost for a PC doesn't go away for a household buying a console, but the opposite is true. A console is a pure luxury item, while a PC is not.
With that in mind, the difference in cost for the household instead lies between the cost of a high-end PC minus the cost of a low-end one, vs a console.

And of course PC games are much cheaper than their console brethrens, but, y'know... details.
^ This.

I am reminded of MovieBob saying how PCs will become redundant in the coming years, and yet, it has had a massive surge in popularity, hell, a lot of dedicated gamers are snapping up gaming pcs instead of consoles.
Should anybody really listen to "Movie"Bob when he talks about video games? I don't think they should. He made the same mistake other business analysts made, he confused PC as a gaming platform and PC as what most people use them for, porn and word processing. The "hardcore" video game market is growing and that means all players in that market will grow, that includes pc gaming, farmville doesn't require anything more than a cellphone, but farmville is not "hardcore" gaming, it's not at all the same audience, it's barely the same commodity. To play these games you need a powerful system, far more powerful than any hand held device, it doesn't have to be stationary but the more mobile it is the more it will cost, a gaming PC is actually a cheaper solution to a mobile device capable of playing these games.

MovieBob also said that PCs would cease to be the device they were, a single computer with a single small screen in the corner of the house, for years before he said that I had already spent my $20 to buy a single cable that turned my PC from a device in the corner to a living room device, it won't be long before I'll be able to cloud compute from my PC to any device I own. Until computing is a free commodity it will make the most sense to buy a PC. A personal computing hub won't go away, it's reach will only increase, and because a console only allows proprietary computing a PC of some sort will always be necessary until society no longer uses computing in our daily lives, which will only be if society collapses.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
Akichi Daikashima said:
Vsync is off.

I always turn it off when investigating how well the game can run on my pc.

And when on max, its at 30-40 fps when I am just exploring an island, on ship battles it could very well drop to like, 20.

I don't play it on max, but the fact that I can't at a decent framerate pisses me off, as my card more than meets the recommended requirements, and can run Far Cry 3 on Max at a constant 60fps.
Ubisoft's PC ports are pretty hit and miss (more miss). Unlike other companies, they do take PC pretty seriously, it's just they're incapable of actually getting it right.

P.S. Thanks
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Do4600 said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
lancar said:
He's right, of course. The PC has the upper hand in pretty much every aspect apart from the initial pricetag.
However, it might be easy to forget that people who own consoles are extremely likely to own a PC as well. And PC's grow old and need renewals every now and again, too. The choice doesn't quite exactly lie between getting a PC or a console to get games on. It lies between getting a better PC than you would otherwise, or a new console.

The cost for a PC doesn't go away for a household buying a console, but the opposite is true. A console is a pure luxury item, while a PC is not.
With that in mind, the difference in cost for the household instead lies between the cost of a high-end PC minus the cost of a low-end one, vs a console.

And of course PC games are much cheaper than their console brethrens, but, y'know... details.
^ This.

I am reminded of MovieBob saying how PCs will become redundant in the coming years, and yet, it has had a massive surge in popularity, hell, a lot of dedicated gamers are snapping up gaming pcs instead of consoles.
Should anybody really listen to "Movie"Bob when he talks about video games? I don't think they should. He made the same mistake other business analysts made, he confused PC as a gaming platform and PC as what most people use them for, porn and word processing. The "hardcore" video game market is growing and that means all players in that market will grow, that includes pc gaming, farmville doesn't require anything more than a cellphone, but farmville is not "hardcore" gaming, it's not at all the same audience, it's barely the same commodity. To play these games you need a powerful system, far more powerful than any hand held device, it doesn't have to be stationary but the more mobile it is the more it will cost, a gaming PC is actually a cheaper solution to a mobile device capable of playing these games.

MovieBob also said that PCs would cease to be the device they were, a single computer with a single small screen in the corner of the house, for years before he said that I had already spent my $20 to buy a single cable that turned my PC from a device in the corner to a living room device, it won't be long before I'll be able to cloud compute from my PC to any device I own. Until computing is a free commodity it will make the most sense to buy a PC. A personal computing hub won't go away, it's reach will only increase, and because a console only allows proprietary computing a PC of some sort will always be necessary until society no longer uses computing in our daily lives, which will only be if society collapses.
No, not really.

He suffers quite a bit from Nintendo-stalgia, and is incredibly dismissive of modern gaming.

It's just that that video stuck out to me as I knew a lot of people like him(of the same mindset regarding that subject) and since it annoyed me and still does when I watch it, I want to ridicule the video for existing.

Seriously, it's an opinion show, yes, but it sounded like a direct response to something that someone said to Bob regarding PC Games.

Like he made that episode especially to piss off the guy that pissed him off or something.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
Even that third party Steambox they showcased a few days ago had a AMD GPU... I think they are starting to panic. Even if PC gaming does great this console generation, Nvidia will be in for some very hard years.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Covarr said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
Vsync is off.

I always turn it off when investigating how well the game can run on my pc.

And when on max, its at 30-40 fps when I am just exploring an island, on ship battles it could very well drop to like, 20.

I don't play it on max, but the fact that I can't at a decent framerate pisses me off, as my card more than meets the recommended requirements, and can run Far Cry 3 on Max at a constant 60fps.
Ubisoft's PC ports are pretty hit and miss (more miss). Unlike other companies, they do take PC pretty seriously, it's just they're incapable of actually getting it right.

P.S. Thanks
The thing is, everything up to ACIII was relatively good in terms of porting.

AnvilNext just does not want to get along with PC.

Or rather, Ubisoft are dickish when it comes to PC Gaming.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
Nvidia hath sworn fealty to the Throne of GabeN
May all bask in the glory of thy greenish glow

ahem

Yep, PC is pretty sweet. Kerbal Space Program man. You just can't get shit like this on a console.
I just did a sample return mission from Duna. Came in to a retrograde polar orbit. Didn't think I'd get home, but managed to get equatorial with some repeated aerobraking and inclination burns, got the lander back on the ground, and had just enough fuel to dock the transfer stage (took some more aerobraking)

im very proud of myself
 

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
Oh look a few months further down the line and Nvidia goes to sing the same tune once more, yeah they still ain't sore from their deal with Sony and MS from what I can see.

Also really?, I have a PC myself but I'm not from that tiny super intelligent "know everything in and out" faction of PC enthusiasts that know exactly 100% what parts to get and where, along with my taste of trying to mod games my games over the years has been less than stellar due to how annoying most of them are to implement and the payoff is not worth it most of the time for me.

A friend of mine wants to build himself a new model next year and so do I, only he's got the money to dish out for DDR4 RAM and I will not which just makes me think what's the point in even upgrading anything when prices for most hardware is high?. I'll also finish this little rant with a big "no I do not need help from any PC person here on how to build a new model" since the decision has already been made.
 

Toadfish1

New member
May 28, 2013
204
0
0
"Company that makes all its money from convincing PC gamers to buy their products says its products are better than alternative".

Seriously, why is this even being reported?
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
No shit, Nvidia we're all aware of some PCs technical superiority over consoles. You're just sore that all the big three console makers went with AMD instead of your stuff. You might not look so desperate if you didn't make pretty much the exact same statement about 3 months ago.
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
It's almost as if Nvidia forgets that the primary reason consoles exist is to provide a stable, low maintenance means of enjoying video game software. The PC will always be better than consoles as far as performance, but it pays for it in stability and a need for regular maintenance.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
Toadfish1 said:
"Company that makes all its money from convincing PC gamers to buy their products says its products are better than alternative".

Seriously, why is this even being reported?
The Escapist has to cater to their largest audience, otherwise they run risk of losing clicks.
 

Toadfish1

New member
May 28, 2013
204
0
0
Kheapathic said:
Toadfish1 said:
"Company that makes all its money from convincing PC gamers to buy their products says its products are better than alternative".

Seriously, why is this even being reported?
The Escapist has to cater to their largest audience, otherwise they run risk of losing clicks.
By repeating advertising verbatim?
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Up next sports team A states that sports team A is the best.

Sports team B responds stating sports team B is the best.

Sports team C makes a declaration that it is better than both sports teams A & B.
 

misg

New member
Apr 13, 2013
116
0
0
Pc's are superior in many ways but my main reason to stick with my PC is price. Simply when you add in all the games I can get for 5-10 bucks even AAA titles. It's no contest. Yes I can easily spend more then 1k on my pc but yearly upgrades are small if I choose. When my PC I already own close to 500 games plus all the free to play titles out there. If I bought an Xbox1 or PS4 400-500 for the console I could easily drop another 600 on games and still only have 10 to play. End of the day PC wins it's a better experience, more versatility, and cost over all the long run way cheaper to stay current with your games.
 

truckspond

New member
Oct 26, 2013
403
0
0
PC has a larger library including EVERY previous console generation and the GTX Titan kicks the crap out of EVERY consoles GPU so it's not really that surprising. If you want high-end gaming just put in 4 titans in quad-SLI and crank everything up to 11 at 4K+ resolutions. Can you get such power in a console?
 

falkTX

New member
Nov 5, 2013
4
0
0
They are forgetting the fact that not all of us like Windows.
Speaking for myself, I only use Linux (for a variety of reasons, mostly coding).

SteamOS will for sure make things better for Linux gaming, but right now someone that uses Linux or MacOS will for sure be better with the consoles.
 

shintakie10

New member
Sep 3, 2008
1,342
0
0
Colt47 said:
It's almost as if Nvidia forgets that the primary reason consoles exist is to provide a stable, low maintenance means of enjoying video game software. The PC will always be better than consoles as far as performance, but it pays for it in stability and a need for regular maintenance.
Everyone says this, yet it never feels true. My 360 needed to update constantly. Whenever I popped in new games, update. Whenever MSoft decided to change the dashboard, update. When I downloaded some title from the store, update. The only updates my computer needs is a antivirus update that does itself automatically in the background, a windows update that only requires 2 clicks to get through, and a graphics driver update that again takes 2 clicks to get through.

Not only that, but my 360 has died far more than I've had computer hardware errors. I've had to replace 3 360s and a PS3 over the years. The only pieces of hardware I've ever had to replace because they broke down in my computer were 2 graphics cards. My extraordinarily old 8600 (or 8800? its been a long long time) that lasted me years. Years and years even. The fact that it even lasted that long was quite extraordinary honestly. Then there was my 250 that I bought for 80 bucks which I had for about 2-3 years before it crapped out on me.

Consoles being a cheaper, stabler and low maintenance alternative to PC's have been a myth since the 360 and PS3 days.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Charcharo said:
Yes, nVidia, the PC is superior, but not exactly for the reasons you gave.

The PC is better because its cheaper in the long run, it is a requirement in today's world anyway and because of its greater library, backwards compatibility and modding.
fix-the-spade said:
I think this is another part of Nvidia's PR war to help convince themselves that abandoning the console market to AMD was a good idea.

Time will tell, with the way online functionality is going I can see the gap between consoles and PC getting ever narrower from a functionality standpoint (enjoy you DRM console players!), but whether that translates to fewer or more consoles remains to be seen.
These 2 comments should go to a date, consume insane amount of alcohol and meth, then have a baby
That unholy abomination would be exactly what I was about to post
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,768
379
88
Country
USA
rofltehcat said:
Even that third party Steambox they showcased a few days ago had a AMD GPU... I think they are starting to panic. Even if PC gaming does great this console generation, Nvidia will be in for some very hard years.
I haven't looked at Project Shield sales yet. Still too pricey for me. I'd need a Gen 6 Nvidia card and a $300 hand unit to really get some value from it. And wireless HDMI isn't ready for prime time yet. Soon it will be. At that time, I don't know if enough people know about this to be interested. But if it catches on, it could be a game changer. Big if, but a possibility.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Meh rather play on platform that does all multiplatform stuff + exclusives that i like. PC unfortunately doesn't have any exclusive games that i want to play. i don't care about graphics i only care about games.
 

Pr0

New member
Feb 20, 2008
373
0
0
truckspond said:
PC has a larger library including EVERY previous console generation and the GTX Titan kicks the crap out of EVERY consoles GPU so it's not really that surprising. If you want high-end gaming just put in 4 titans in quad-SLI and crank everything up to 11 at 4K+ resolutions. Can you get such power in a console?
Even as a PC Gaming Elitist myself I have to ask if you can get that kind of power in under a 400 dollar package...cause last I checked that was about half the price of one Titan.

There is no question that running four titans in quad SLI will hammer the ever living dogshit out of anything that any console can do, but you've essentially also spent $4,000 to do it.

I'm no console apologist, I don't use my XBox 360 for anything but watching TV shows on demand and I barely use it for that now that I have Netflix on my Nexus 7 but regardless of that, you have to be somewhat impressed with what the PS4 is doing at its price point....the XBox One...not so much.
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
You don't say, my gaming experience would also be improved by a chair made out of breasts... doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Frankly being happy with the knowledge that I could just play Journey when it came out was good enough reason to be a dirty console scrub, and if I'm trully hurting fir a game that's only avaliable on PC I guess I'll just haveto use the high end one at work and endure an xbox controller.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
I still dont see any of the appeal of PC gaming but I guess that's just me. I cant think of a single game (All things equal) i've played and enjoyed that I would enjoy more on a PC than I would on a console (other than maybe a pokemon hack like Blaze Black).

But I can see why people like PC gaming, so to me its just different strokes. each has its own advantages but I personally don't like PC gaming.
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
Next they're going to say that we need oxygen to live or some shit like that...
 

Ushiromiya Battler

Oddly satisfied
Feb 7, 2010
601
0
0
Akichi Daikashima said:
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
ERMAGHERD, NVIDIA RR STUPID, MY MICROWAVE OVEN IS BEST TO PLAY COD GHOSTS WITH.

To be fair, yes, my microwave is the best experience I've had with CoD Ghosts.

Back on topic: what nVidia said is pointless, and the title should be changed as it seems a bit bait-y.

They only said that PCs are way more powerful than next gen consoles, which is true, but the title might mislead people.

Off topic gripe: WHY WONT UBISOFT PATCH AC IV ALREADY, FFS.

I BOUGHT A FUCKING 670 LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND AC IV DOESNT EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD, YET MY CARD STRUGGLES TO RUN IT ABOVE 30 FPS ON MAX.

WHAT THE FUCK MAN.

It feels like next gen ports are following a trend of being badly optimised.
Pssstt, get 3D3Overrider and force vsync and triple buffering.
Pretty much solves the under 30fps issue on every pc.

OT:
Wow, I never knew Nvidia, I never knew....
Vsync is off.

I always turn it off when investigating how well the game can run on my pc.

And when on max, its at 30-40 fps when I am just exploring an island, on ship battles it could very well drop to like, 20.

I don't play it on max, but the fact that I can't at a decent framerate pisses me off, as my card more than meets the recommended requirements, and can run Far Cry 3 on Max at a constant 60fps.
Weird, I had the same problem up to the point where I installed D3Doverrider and forced vsync and triple buffering.
Got the fix off the steam forum, solved the fps problems for pretty much everyone in the thread.

I have now have around 30-40fps on sea and 40-60in towns.

EDIT:If I remember correctly the vsync option is broken, so it doesn't matter whether you have it on or not in game.
Forcing the vsync through d3doverrider, nvidia panel or Ati's equivalent should supposedly fixing it.
 

taciturnCandid

New member
Dec 1, 2010
363
0
0
Pr0 said:
truckspond said:
PC has a larger library including EVERY previous console generation and the GTX Titan kicks the crap out of EVERY consoles GPU so it's not really that surprising. If you want high-end gaming just put in 4 titans in quad-SLI and crank everything up to 11 at 4K+ resolutions. Can you get such power in a console?
Even as a PC Gaming Elitist myself I have to ask if you can get that kind of power in under a 400 dollar package...cause last I checked that was about half the price of one Titan.

There is no question that running four titans in quad SLI will hammer the ever living dogshit out of anything that any console can do, but you've essentially also spent $4,000 to do it.

I'm no console apologist, I don't use my XBox 360 for anything but watching TV shows on demand and I barely use it for that now that I have Netflix on my Nexus 7 but regardless of that, you have to be somewhat impressed with what the PS4 is doing at its price point....the XBox One...not so much.
PS4 price point..... plus playstation plus.

2 years of PS+ is 100$

So to have a ps4 for two years is already 500$

PCPartPicker part list [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1] / Price breakdown by merchant [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1/by_merchant/] / Benchmarks [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1/benchmarks/]

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox] ($117.96 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus M5A78L-M LX PLUS Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-m5a78lmlxplus] ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f314900cl9d8gbsr] ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/western-digital-internal-hard-drive-wd10ezex] ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-r78702gd5toc] ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/hec-case-enterprise] ($9.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-power-supply-cx500] ($25.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-gfc02050] ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $516.88
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 20:27 EST-0500)


Pretty much the same price as a ps4+2 years of ps+ and outdoes the ps4. If you already have an OS or use steam os then it is less.
 

gnihton

New member
Mar 18, 2012
89
0
0
songnar said:
I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.
It's consoles that are going to be phased out. They're not necessary any more. The Steam box is just supposed to be a Frankenstein of console and PC in an attempt at dominating the market, because it's closer to something good than a console.

If you're going to throw the state of the economy into it, how about not buying an entertainment system at all. You don't need them to live. Just as I don't need to spend money on a good PC, you don't need to spend money on a piece of shit console. Nvm the fact that you actually save money on a PC if you buy more than, like, 10 games every 5 years.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
thiosk said:
Didn't think I'd get home, but managed to get equatorial with some repeated aerobraking and inclination burns, got the lander back on the ground, and had just enough fuel to dock the transfer stage (took some more aerobraking)
I recently launched a rescue mission for the crew of my manned base on Duna (the docking port fell off their lander, so they can't go home otherwise) so I must congratulate you on a successful mission. Interplanetary missions always feel incredibly epic!

But yeah, this is exactly the kind of game which defines the PC, and also why I feel Matt Wright is missing the point here. You don't need the "ultimate game machine" to play games like KSP, or Dwarf Fortress, or Minecraft. A decent computer will help, but my five year old decaying wreck still manages fine.

The reason I play on PC is to pay lower prices for games, and to have access to indie and modded games without being fucked over for it. By contrast, the only reason not to play on PC are a bunch of overpriced exclusives with a 10 hour playtime.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
gnihton said:
songnar said:
I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.
It's consoles that are going to be phased out. They're not necessary any more. The Steam box is just supposed to be a Frankenstein of console and PC in an attempt at dominating the market, because it's closer to something good than a console.

If you're going to throw the state of the economy into it, how about not buying an entertainment system at all. You don't need them to live. Just as I don't need to spend money on a good PC, you don't need to spend money on a piece of shit console. Nvm the fact that you actually save money on a PC if you buy more than, like, 10 games every 5 years.
I would disagree. Consoles have the advantage of being idiot proof over PC. They always have and always will. Though you may be hard pressed to find someone like that on the internet, there are people who don't know which PC parts to get, so they'd rather just stop by GameStop and pick up a console. And that market is much larger as well. Consoles aren't going anywhere, at least not until public schools start teaching PC architecture (which they should.)
 

Shim3d

New member
Nov 20, 2011
48
0
0
Aeonknight said:
Consoles aren't going anywhere, at least not until public schools start teaching PC architecture (which they should.)
I took a class that taught that in my high school, I agree.

OT: Is this supposed to be news...? From what I know the consoles demographic aren't the type to care for or want a Titan. As long as it can run the latest Forza, Fifa, Cod, Tekken or so, performance isn't a priority.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Arina Love said:
Meh rather play on platform that does all multiplatform stuff + exclusives that i like. PC unfortunately doesn't have any exclusive games that i want to play. i don't care about graphics i only care about games.
The PC have the best exclusive: professional hobo post-apocalyptic survival "simulator"- Neoscavenger
(fun game, but still in beta)

But in all seriousness
PC gaming isn't as much about graphics (although must admit that if game and hardware can, then result can be quite amazing)
As much about mods (Minecraft without mods isn't full game) and backwards compatibility from stone age (I can play every game of Deus Ex, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, C&C, Need for speed, X, Civilization, Simcity series on one machine with little to no hassle)
Not to mention if publisher/developer decides to pull darkspore on you, you can always apply crack and keep playing your game.
Besides you need PC anyway, so why not?
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Of course the platform you can upgrade with the newest hardware available if you have the cash is going to outperform a locked box console. Doesn't mean consoles are less fun because they might be less shiny. It all comes out to subjective likes and dislikes, and I happen to like both PC and console games. Each has a different experience and different set of games available which to me makes gaming diverse and fun.
And I've been a PC gamer almost as long as I've been a console gamer (NES was my first followed by my first homebrew PC 8086 chip... which was quickly upgraded to a 386...). Ahhh mammaries... err memories.
 

Alorxico

New member
Jan 5, 2011
193
0
0
Strange, the only reason I bought a "gaming computer" was to play Sims 2, and now it is my preferred way of gaming. Why? Because I discovered that the people playing the games via PC usually had the tools and know-how need to FIX the bugs and glitches in the games that the developers refused to fix. I was sick of losing hours of game play on my 360 over a known issue that the game designer said was "unfixable" only to learn it was patched three months earlier on the PC version and NO ONE had any issue with the patch.

Score one for the PC.
 

Mad World

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
795
0
1
Country
Canada
While I concur, Nvidia probably wouldn't be so quick to say this if they had won the rights to have at least one of the consoles use their technology. If memory serves, Nvidia wanted too much money, so the developers went with AMD; thus, all three next-gen consoles use AMD GPUs.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
While I personally prefer PC gaming to console gaming Nvidia is only saying this because they lost all the console contracts to AMD, who was able to provide an integrated CPU/GPU solution, which Nvidia could not, and were likely to offer more competitive pricing.

Since then Nvidia has come out several times to denounce console gaming. Of course I think consoles will be just as much a driving force in games this generation as they were in the last generation.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
songnar said:
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.

In terms of gaming - a standardized product like the consoles or, soon, the Steam Box is much easier to plan for, requires less testing across the dozens of possible hardware combinations and is, thus, somewhat easier to plan for.

I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.
I could build a PC that's competitive with any console for about as much as most people would spend on a console and PC. More than competitive really.

And the whole "dozens of possible hardware configurations makes it hard to test and plan" is largely a myth now. No one is coding their games down to the hardware level on PC's. Doing that would literally be stupid. You code using the standard API's that everyone uses, for hardware architecture that's pretty standard, and the manufacturers like Nvidia support this standardized coding through the release of their video drivers. In fact, since most console games are coded using a variant of either Direct X or OpenGl, there's not a whole lot of difference between the platforms. Even less so now that the new machines are using standardized PC hardware.

There are only a few reasons that games run into problems these days, and most of them come down to either insufficient testing, complexity of the coding required by modern games, developer incompetence or, in the rarest of cases, and actual hardware or software incompatibility. But those almost never actually happen relatively speaking and are probably among the easiest problems to test for and diagnose at the users end. And even then, most of these could easily fall under the first few categories instead.

And the best part is, consoles suffer from the exact same problems, in fairly comparable numbers most of the time, despite standardized hardware. Case in point being every Bethesda game ever made since their programmers are incompetent and their testing is inadequate.

EDIT: and to add a bit to the cost point, PC games are, on average, quite a bit cheaper than console games. The extra money spent on a decent PC will pay for itself long before you've upgraded if you play enough.
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
This coming from the company where none of the new consoles uses Nvidia...yeah I wonder why they are flapping their mouths now?
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
While this is hardly news, it's a nice to have a reminder every now and then that these "console wars" are for a distant second place slot.

wooty said:
To be honest, I can nwever tell the damn difference in gameplay or graphics anyway. My PC copy of Bioshock Infinite looked and felt the same as my mates 360 version. My PC version of Borderlands 2 looked and felt the same as my PS3 copy. My Assassins Creed 3 PC copy wouldnt even fucking play, but my PS3 copy had no problems.

It all feels the same to me to be honest. The only difference I notice between my PC and my consoles is that my back hurts a lot less when playing the latter....
The advantage to PCs extends beyond graphics. PCs have free modding, a playable library that goes back decades, a better controller (M+K), plus you probably already use a PC for other things anyway. Why get 2 devices to do the work that one can provide?

Even when it comes to price PCs are catching up to consoles, and surpassing them in many ways. Unlike consoles where a whole new device has to be bought periodically, PCs can be upgraded piecemeal as individual components get outdated or break which saves money. PC also has more sources of cheap games than consoles, helped by its library of older games.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you could put together a relatively low end PC that's still more powerful than a console at a competitive price. And that's TODAY, imagine how it'll be years down the road.

From what I can see, the only thing consoles really have going for them is console exclusives, which isn't an inherent superiority, it's just them rigging the system. There are games exclusive to PC too though.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
Really.

The PR guy (call it what you want it's the same job) from a company that makes products that can only be used in PCs wants us to buy PCs instead of consoles?

You shock me with your incredible news. Maybe next you will tell me that the marketing director of Kellogs thinks that Kellogs help you with heart problems or the PR guy from Mercedes knows for a fact that Mercedes make better cars than Porsche. My god I cannot keep up with all these startling new revelations, mayhap my brain will fall from my head at anymore delirious facts of this nature.
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
So I take it Nvidia's still butt hurt about not making the chips for this gen's console market? And what's this "extra functionality" they're talking about? You don't need a gaming pc type word documents. My phone provides more than enough processing power for that. Most people need a laptop, not a pc, to be productive but gaming laptops have several draw backs

falkTX said:
They are forgetting the fact that not all of us like Windows.
Speaking for myself, I only use Linux (for a variety of reasons, mostly coding).

SteamOS will for sure make things better for Linux gaming, but right now someone that uses Linux or MacOS will for sure be better with the consoles.
I thought I might have been the only person on these forums who's major problem with pc gaming was Windows. Feels liberating.

blackrave said:
But in all seriousness
PC gaming isn't as much about graphics as much about mods and backwards compatibility from stone age. Not to mention if publisher/developer decides to pull darkspore on you, you can always apply crack and keep playing your game.
Besides you need PC anyway, so why not?
See, I just like to keep it simple. I use my (aging) gaming pc for the stuff you mentioned: mods, old school, pc genres, free indi games, and cheap Steam games. But when it comes to new triple A's that I want to play unaltered on my TV with a controller, what's the point? I might as well use my ps3 cause it boots in 5 seconds and I don't even half to bend over to turn it on. As for cracking games, if I just buy my games on blue ray now, in 10 years I can play them on my space computer's ps3 emulator
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
PoolCleaningRobot said:
I might as well use my ps3 cause it boots in 5 seconds and I don't even half to bend over to turn it on.
I don't really care what anyone games with and I'm glad you enjoy your gaming system. I have a PC, PS3 and WiiU and I previously have had a 360. However, my PC boots in two seconds, is attached to a 40" 1080p LED television and a pair of B&W bookshelf speakers powered by a Yamaha RX-V457 receiver and I have a 360 controller for it as well as a joystick, keyboard and mouse. I can also turn it on by remote. The PS3 is a nice bluray player that I can play Uncharted on. The WiiU has a control structure that other devices don't have. These arguments that people get into are largely silly though. That my PC boots in two seconds does not matter to your gaming experience with the PS3 and that the $400 price tag for a console requires more money on games and an extra $60 for every additional controller as compared to a $1200 initial price tag on a PC that I can't play games with other friends in the room is about what money you have and what priorities you put on your money. I also like gaming on tablets, playing Carcasonne, and tabletop rpgs... Now I've forgotten what I was saying. I guess I will go read a book or something.
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
taciturnCandid said:
Pr0 said:
truckspond said:
PC has a larger library including EVERY previous console generation and the GTX Titan kicks the crap out of EVERY consoles GPU so it's not really that surprising. If you want high-end gaming just put in 4 titans in quad-SLI and crank everything up to 11 at 4K+ resolutions. Can you get such power in a console?
Even as a PC Gaming Elitist myself I have to ask if you can get that kind of power in under a 400 dollar package...cause last I checked that was about half the price of one Titan.

There is no question that running four titans in quad SLI will hammer the ever living dogshit out of anything that any console can do, but you've essentially also spent $4,000 to do it.

I'm no console apologist, I don't use my XBox 360 for anything but watching TV shows on demand and I barely use it for that now that I have Netflix on my Nexus 7 but regardless of that, you have to be somewhat impressed with what the PS4 is doing at its price point....the XBox One...not so much.
PS4 price point..... plus playstation plus.

2 years of PS+ is 100$

So to have a ps4 for two years is already 500$

PCPartPicker part list [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1] / Price breakdown by merchant [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1/by_merchant/] / Benchmarks [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1/benchmarks/]

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox] ($117.96 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus M5A78L-M LX PLUS Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-m5a78lmlxplus] ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f314900cl9d8gbsr] ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/western-digital-internal-hard-drive-wd10ezex] ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-r78702gd5toc] ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/hec-case-enterprise] ($9.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-power-supply-cx500] ($25.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-gfc02050] ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $516.88
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 20:27 EST-0500)


Pretty much the same price as a ps4+2 years of ps+ and outdoes the ps4. If you already have an OS or use steam os then it is less.
You forget to include the free AAA and indie games that comes with a subscription for Playstation+.

Anyway, of course a (new) PC is going to be more powerful than a console but that is missing the point.
Or rather, shooting in the opposite direction of the point entirely.
 

Vylox

New member
May 3, 2013
79
0
0
I still find it funny that these consoles are less machine than my 2+ year old tablet.... Which cost less than the consoles! (Price of my tablet new, $400..)
Its also interesting to note that for under $400 one could get a laptop that outperforms the new consoles.... for less than $400 one can easily get a tablet that outperforms those same consoles. And for under $400 a person can get a decent gaming desktop that outperforms these consoles.



Seriously. This isn't news or anything, its pure PR.
 

Furism

New member
Sep 10, 2009
132
0
0
songnar said:
d viability moving forward.
I've been hearing this for like 13 years (PS2 release) :) Also games on PC tend to be cheaper on average than on the console, so you need to factor that in. Personally I think the solution is indeed smaller form-factor PCs, with optional external components using Thunderbold or USB 3.0.

Or, ideally, an external GPU that I can connect/disconnect from my laptop. When I'm at home I can get high-end graphics, but then I can still travel and have all my stuff with me without going through the hassles of synchronizing docs and all that. I've seen some prototypes Thunderbold-connected external GPUs (until recently, USB couldn't be as fast as Thunderbolt) but they were not market ready (being prototypes). I think Nvidia should investigate this more than small form factor PCs. Anybody can build small form-factor PCs. Not everybody can make an external GPU.
 

not_you

Don't ask, or you won't know
Mar 16, 2011
479
0
0
Yep... Nvidia got it right...
A decently built PC (Within the past 3 years) is better than the consoles out this week....

Simple...

That pretty much says it all....
 

GundamSentinel

The leading man, who else?
Aug 23, 2009
4,448
0
0
wooty said:
To be honest, I can nwever tell the damn difference in gameplay or graphics anyway. My PC copy of Bioshock Infinite looked and felt the same as my mates 360 version. My PC version of Borderlands 2 looked and felt the same as my PS3 copy. My Assassins Creed 3 PC copy wouldnt even fucking play, but my PS3 copy had no problems.

It all feels the same to me to be honest. The only difference I notice between my PC and my consoles is that my back hurts a lot less when playing the latter....
Same. Gaming to me is more than graphics. Even when I see the difference in graphics I just don't care.

For me the big advantage of a console it that you can buy it and don't have to worry about it any more. Just put in a game, lie on the couch and play it. The fact is that I've been able to use my PS3 to play practically every new release I like for the past 6 years without buying any new hardware and without faffing about trying to get it to work properly. PC cheaper? Maybe, but not for me.
 

Flutterguy

New member
Jun 26, 2011
970
0
0
Auberon said:
Just tell the developers to reverse current mentality to PC-first mentality, and it might work. But 90% of them probably don't even think of the difference between KB+M and controller, which can produce nigh-unplayable ports.
Just plug in a controller. Worst case scenario you will have to get 1-2 mods to make it work for any particular game.

Seriously though computers are a commonplace staple of the modern home. They can run games with much better graphics, and do well, everything else better then consoles too. This is why the xbox focused so much on switching between programs and interworking social media, gimmicks are the only thing keeping them relevant.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
songnar said:
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.

In terms of gaming - a standardized product like the consoles or, soon, the Steam Box is much easier to plan for, requires less testing across the dozens of possible hardware combinations and is, thus, somewhat easier to plan for.

I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.

But that's not exactly true when the numbers are added up when gaming on PC

You can make a pretty nice gaming PC for 500-600 okay yes, that's expensive but when buying the games is where you're saving far far more money. The deals have been head spinning, Batman Arkham Asylum & City GoTY, Scribblenauts, FEAR 1-3 MK Kollection, few other titles for $5 bucks total? How much would that cost even going off used prices? Many games are currently 50-70% or more off on steam, origin, green man gaming, amazon. That's something you don't see on the other end, yes decent deals like $5-$15 off but 75%? Not unless it's a bomb of a game.
$60 per controller, proprietary headset connectors, monthly fees for online play and features? You can get a pretty solid keyboard and mouse set up for PC for cheap, or hell, use your old PS2, 360...Genesis, SNES controllers if you want with a cheap adapter, net is free, headsets you can do any you'd like pretty much, even bluetooth phone headsets if you have one.

On top of that you can just do more, I'm an artist so make art on my PC and hook it up to my TV and play games with friends with my old 360's controllers. ...Yeah I'm aware saying doing art is a rather specific desire but well what else do you plug when you love doing something? :p

Sure the start up is cheaper but god damn the only reason I grab a console game is if it's exclusive or handheld...Love my handhelds D:
 

Artlover

New member
Apr 1, 2009
50
0
0
not_you said:
Yep... Nvidia got it right...
A decently built PC (Within the past 3 years) is better than the consoles out this week....
You give the PS4 & XB1 too much credit. A cheap 5+ year old eMachine can out perform either.

The fundamental problem of the XB1 and PS4 is they are just low/mid spec'ed PC's that were already outdated when they were designed years ago, and yet, struggling to do 720 @ 30fps with few games running at 60fps or 1080p.

That is not next gen. That is not even current gen. The Xbox360 and PS3 already do 720 @ 60fps with no issues at all and can do 1080 @ 30fps with a bit of effort. Hell, even the Gamecube from the 6th generation can do 1080.

A decent computer from 10 years ago can easily run 1960x1280 @ 60 fps all day long.

Lets ignore GFX for a minute. Let's talk CPU. Lets look at the XB1 as an example. Do you realize that it's actual performance is barely any better than the Xbox360. Why? While, the XB1 has 8 cores. 2 are reserved for the OS, only 6 are used for gaming, and are only running at 1.75 GHz. The X360 was 3 cores at 3.2 GHz. That translates into 10.5GHz vs 9.6GHz of processing power. Not much differences, and it shows.

I'm not impressed by what I have seen by either the XB1 or the PS4. Neither gave me any reason to buy them. Every game demo I've seen does nothing but reinforce the idea that the Xbox360 and PS3 are equally as good and I might as well just keep my old systems and my money.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
ERMAGHERD, NVIDIA RR STUPID, MY MICROWAVE OVEN IS BEST TO PLAY COD GHOSTS WITH.

To be fair, yes, my microwave is the best experience I've had with CoD Ghosts.

Back on topic: what nVidia said is pointless, and the title should be changed as it seems a bit bait-y.

They only said that PCs are way more powerful than next gen consoles, which is true, but the title might mislead people.

Off topic gripe: WHY WONT UBISOFT PATCH AC IV ALREADY, FFS.

I BOUGHT A FUCKING 670 LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND AC IV DOESNT EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD, YET MY CARD STRUGGLES TO RUN IT ABOVE 30 FPS ON MAX.

WHAT THE FUCK MAN.

It feels like next gen ports are following a trend of being badly optimised.
Pssstt, get 3D3Overrider and force vsync and triple buffering.
Pretty much solves the under 30fps issue on every pc.

OT:
Wow, I never knew Nvidia, I never knew....
Vsync is off.

I always turn it off when investigating how well the game can run on my pc.

And when on max, its at 30-40 fps when I am just exploring an island, on ship battles it could very well drop to like, 20.

I don't play it on max, but the fact that I can't at a decent framerate pisses me off, as my card more than meets the recommended requirements, and can run Far Cry 3 on Max at a constant 60fps.
Weird, I had the same problem up to the point where I installed D3Doverrider and forced vsync and triple buffering.
Got the fix off the steam forum, solved the fps problems for pretty much everyone in the thread.

I have now have around 30-40fps on sea and 40-60in towns.

EDIT:If I remember correctly the vsync option is broken, so it doesn't matter whether you have it on or not in game.
Forcing the vsync through d3doverrider, nvidia panel or Ati's equivalent should supposedly fixing it.
^ Those are pretty much my averages too.

I only ever turn vsync on if:

1) I can run the game on max at +60fps

2) Screen tearing is horrendous

But usually I test my rig before vsync, as that can impact frames significantly.

But GOSH DANG, if I can devour Far Cry 3 on max, and Witcher 2 at near max(no uber) both at 60fps, then why is AC IV so problematic?

Because Ubi are lazy.
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
shintakie10 said:
Colt47 said:
It's almost as if Nvidia forgets that the primary reason consoles exist is to provide a stable, low maintenance means of enjoying video game software. The PC will always be better than consoles as far as performance, but it pays for it in stability and a need for regular maintenance.
Everyone says this, yet it never feels true. My 360 needed to update constantly. Whenever I popped in new games, update. Whenever MSoft decided to change the dashboard, update. When I downloaded some title from the store, update. The only updates my computer needs is a antivirus update that does itself automatically in the background, a windows update that only requires 2 clicks to get through, and a graphics driver update that again takes 2 clicks to get through.

Not only that, but my 360 has died far more than I've had computer hardware errors. I've had to replace 3 360s and a PS3 over the years. The only pieces of hardware I've ever had to replace because they broke down in my computer were 2 graphics cards. My extraordinarily old 8600 (or 8800? its been a long long time) that lasted me years. Years and years even. The fact that it even lasted that long was quite extraordinary honestly. Then there was my 250 that I bought for 80 bucks which I had for about 2-3 years before it crapped out on me.

Consoles being a cheaper, stabler and low maintenance alternative to PC's have been a myth since the 360 and PS3 days.
How long did you own each Xbox 360? Also how long did you own the PS3? I've owned my white brick of an Xbox 360 since 2007 and it still runs as good as the day I bought it. Unfortunately, I never owned the original PS3 so I really can't comment on that systems lifetime performance. I tend to take very good care of my consoles and still have a working launch PS2 with the hard drive (been playing old games I've bought off E-bay recently).
 

AstaresPanda

New member
Nov 5, 2009
441
0
0
All already know this, but when ever we say it we are called "pc elitist" or rich nerds who spend all their time hunched over a pc and piss away what was another comment before 2500 every 6 months.
 

Ushiromiya Battler

Oddly satisfied
Feb 7, 2010
601
0
0
Akichi Daikashima said:
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
ERMAGHERD, NVIDIA RR STUPID, MY MICROWAVE OVEN IS BEST TO PLAY COD GHOSTS WITH.

To be fair, yes, my microwave is the best experience I've had with CoD Ghosts.

Back on topic: what nVidia said is pointless, and the title should be changed as it seems a bit bait-y.

They only said that PCs are way more powerful than next gen consoles, which is true, but the title might mislead people.

Off topic gripe: WHY WONT UBISOFT PATCH AC IV ALREADY, FFS.

I BOUGHT A FUCKING 670 LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND AC IV DOESNT EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD, YET MY CARD STRUGGLES TO RUN IT ABOVE 30 FPS ON MAX.

WHAT THE FUCK MAN.

It feels like next gen ports are following a trend of being badly optimised.
Pssstt, get 3D3Overrider and force vsync and triple buffering.
Pretty much solves the under 30fps issue on every pc.

OT:
Wow, I never knew Nvidia, I never knew....
Vsync is off.

I always turn it off when investigating how well the game can run on my pc.

And when on max, its at 30-40 fps when I am just exploring an island, on ship battles it could very well drop to like, 20.

I don't play it on max, but the fact that I can't at a decent framerate pisses me off, as my card more than meets the recommended requirements, and can run Far Cry 3 on Max at a constant 60fps.
Weird, I had the same problem up to the point where I installed D3Doverrider and forced vsync and triple buffering.
Got the fix off the steam forum, solved the fps problems for pretty much everyone in the thread.

I have now have around 30-40fps on sea and 40-60in towns.

EDIT:If I remember correctly the vsync option is broken, so it doesn't matter whether you have it on or not in game.
Forcing the vsync through d3doverrider, nvidia panel or Ati's equivalent should supposedly fixing it.
^ Those are pretty much my averages too.

I only ever turn vsync on if:

1) I can run the game on max at +60fps

2) Screen tearing is horrendous

But usually I test my rig before vsync, as that can impact frames significantly.

But GOSH DANG, if I can devour Far Cry 3 on max, and Witcher 2 at near max(no uber) both at 60fps, then why is AC IV so problematic?

Because Ubi are lazy.
I didn't imply they weren't lazy, I just gave you a few options that have solved screen tearing and low fps for a majority of steam users.

Anyways, thank you for mentioning Witcher 2, I gotta play that again.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
Nvidia claiming that buying PC's is better is as surprising as a Playstation Magazine telling people to buy Playstations.

Honestly, I myself am gonna be getting a gaming rig soon and I still got a PS4 and Wii-U for the stuff they can do, Wii-U can do things in games that PC cannot (I can see that game-pad working wondrously with many games) and PS4 is sure to have good exclusives (because PC sure ain't gonna curb my need for JRPG's)

I admit Steam is great, but only for sales, standard prices are roughly the same as consoles (least where I'm from) and my game-shops have sales often, so I can take advantage of both.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
I have a PC to do what a console can't, which is much. I do, however, have consoles to do what a PC can't, such as load in a timely manner, standardize drivers, upload patches without prompting me, run at good graphics and framerate without having to buy new hardware every two years, and--with the current console gen--snap from ANY game, no matter how intensive the requirements, straight to netflix, and install a new game, while chatting with my friends. My PC CAN do that laundry list of things, but I tell you it WON'T. It will crash if I try half that list, regardless of my actual CAPABILITY to Alt-Tab to other windows and apps.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
I still dont see any of the appeal of PC gaming but I guess that's just me. I cant think of a single game (All things equal) i've played and enjoyed that I would enjoy more on a PC than I would on a console (other than maybe a pokemon hack like Blaze Black).

But I can see why people like PC gaming, so to me its just different strokes. each has its own advantages but I personally don't like PC gaming.
im exactly the same as you but from the opposite perspective. i get why people enjoy console gaming but i gave up on them after the ps2.

plus most of the games i play simply dont exist on console and never will
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
This just in: Nvidia says "Stop having fun, guys!". More news as it develops.
 

Funyahns

New member
Sep 2, 2012
140
0
0
Nieroshai said:
I have a PC to do what a console can't, which is much. I do, however, have consoles to do what a PC can't, such as load in a timely manner, standardize drivers, upload patches without prompting me, run at good graphics and framerate without having to buy new hardware every two years, and--with the current console gen--snap from ANY game, no matter how intensive the requirements, straight to netflix, and install a new game, while chatting with my friends. My PC CAN do that laundry list of things, but I tell you it WON'T. It will crash if I try half that list, regardless of my actual CAPABILITY to Alt-Tab to other windows and apps.
Wait you think consoles load faster than a pc? I can boot my computer from off and be on the internet in about 30 seconds. Drivers and such are hardly an issue, I can think of maybe 4 times where I could not play a game because I needed to update my video drivers in the past decade. Your pc should be doing windows updates on its own. What other patches do you have to get prompted for? Java? You don't need a high end pc for good frame rates.

Sounds like your missing a solid state hard drive to me. That is probably the greatest new piece of pc tech in a decade.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Teoes said:
Well it's entirely predictable that Nvidia would say something like this; not least because.. haven't they come out and said it before in the not-too-distant past?
Wasn't there a taste of sour grapes the first time, too?

songnar said:
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.

In terms of gaming - a standardized product like the consoles or, soon, the Steam Box is much easier to plan for, requires less testing across the dozens of possible hardware combinations and is, thus, somewhat easier to plan for.

I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.
And publishers, the big ones anyway, think consoles are where the money is at (I'm not commenting on whether or not it is, as I don't know and don't care), so they'll get the love. It doesn't matter who has the better machine if the experience is gimped by a lack of the games, or bad ports, or...Whatever.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Nieroshai said:
I have a PC to do what a console can't, which is much. I do, however, have consoles to do what a PC can't, such as load in a timely manner, standardize drivers, upload patches without prompting me, run at good graphics and framerate without having to buy new hardware every two years, and--with the current console gen--snap from ANY game, no matter how intensive the requirements, straight to netflix, and install a new game, while chatting with my friends. My PC CAN do that laundry list of things, but I tell you it WON'T. It will crash if I try half that list, regardless of my actual CAPABILITY to Alt-Tab to other windows and apps.
Cheaping out on my graphics card and processor, I went four years between new equipment. That's half a console generation (r more), and that was on low-end hardware. I don't get this whole frequency thing.
 

James Crook

New member
Jul 15, 2011
546
0
0
Yeah sure, the PC is far superior to Next-gen consoles and ARE affordable if you know your stuff and get around to building one.
But not with your GPUs, Nvidia.
Also, come back to me when you get your partners at Ubisoft to actually abide by your words and do some work optimizing their games.
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
Matt Wright said:
Steam now has more users than Xbox Live. There is a whole new generation who grew up playing on PC with titles like Minecraft or World of Tanks. There's a huge community who love playing their games on PC
Is there a source for that? I'm a tad skeptical.

Anyway, yeah, not sure why this is still being discussed. In terms of power, consoles and PC's are a false equivalency to a certain extent, even with a common architecture across the three, now.

Windows is designed to run on potentially billions of hardware combinations, and thus cannot be optimised for any single one of those specifically. Consoles are designed specifically for one hardware combination. That tight vertical integration means they can make the OS as tightly coupled to the hardware as possible, allowing it to squeeze the most out of it as possible. Which is why a console with far inferior specs to a PC can still produce similar results to the PC in a game (graphics wise).

AMD's Mantle technology is the closest thing to a low level GCN on PC (alongside a couple of obscure open source implementations). The sad thing is that it's AMD only, and R290X at that. And it only works on BF4 so far. What PC gaming needs is a super low level API that anyone can tap into (meaning cross compatibility between AMD, nVidia, and Intel). Before someone says "Direct X", that's abstracted as hell for the sake of developers, I'm talking low level, direct hardware access. I think that if Intel did something similar to Mantle, they'd make a huge leap forward. A low level graphics API tapping into Iris and future iterations. It won't have much impact in graphically intensive blockbusters, but stuff like LoL, WoW, etc, will all go for that (since they want their game played on as many machines as possible).

Oh, and just a quick FYI in case anyone hasn't already worked this out. The only reason nVidia have been banging on about the superiority of PC gaming in comparison to the latest consoles because you won't find a nVidia GPU in either the PS4 or the XB1. They did so badly with the PS3 last round that they were dropped like hot potatoes, coupled with the fact that AMD are so desperate for business that I'll bet they're practically selling the Jaguar chipsets for almost cost. Just take anything nVidia says in this regard with a large pinch of butthurt.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that, tech wise, we're doing good for gaming right now. The XB1 and PS4 are both competent with good futures, and PC gaming will stride forth ever in the vanguard.
 

Popbangwoo

New member
Jan 6, 2012
29
0
0
This isn't somehow related to the fact that ALL of the New-Gen console use AMD is it? I sense a small amount of butthurt in this one. But as a PC gamer I agree that it's superior if you have the funds.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
Griffolion said:
Matt Wright said:
Steam now has more users than Xbox Live. There is a whole new generation who grew up playing on PC with titles like Minecraft or World of Tanks. There's a huge community who love playing their games on PC
Is there a source for that? I'm a tad skeptical.

Anyway, yeah, not sure why this is still being discussed. In terms of power, consoles and PC's are a false equivalency to a certain extent, even with a common architecture across the three, now.

Windows is designed to run on potentially billions of hardware combinations, and thus cannot be optimised for any single one of those specifically. Consoles are designed specifically for one hardware combination. That tight vertical integration means they can make the OS as tightly coupled to the hardware as possible, allowing it to squeeze the most out of it as possible. Which is why a console with far inferior specs to a PC can still produce similar results to the PC in a game (graphics wise).

AMD's Mantle technology is the closest thing to a low level GCN on PC (alongside a couple of obscure open source implementations). The sad thing is that it's AMD only, and R290X at that. And it only works on BF4 so far. What PC gaming needs is a super low level API that anyone can tap into (meaning cross compatibility between AMD, nVidia, and Intel). Before someone says "Direct X", that's abstracted as hell for the sake of developers, I'm talking low level, direct hardware access. I think that if Intel did something similar to Mantle, they'd make a huge leap forward. A low level graphics API tapping into Iris and future iterations. It won't have much impact in graphically intensive blockbusters, but stuff like LoL, WoW, etc, will all go for that (since they want their game played on as many machines as possible).

Oh, and just a quick FYI in case anyone hasn't already worked this out. The only reason nVidia have been banging on about the superiority of PC gaming in comparison to the latest consoles because you won't find a nVidia GPU in either the PS4 or the XB1. They did so badly with the PS3 last round that they were dropped like hot potatoes, coupled with the fact that AMD are so desperate for business that I'll bet they're practically selling the Jaguar chipsets for almost cost. Just take anything nVidia says in this regard with a large pinch of butthurt.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that, tech wise, we're doing good for gaming right now. The XB1 and PS4 are both competent with good futures, and PC gaming will stride forth ever in the vanguard.
I agree that Nvidia talking about the benefits of PC gaming isn't really news since that's their only real area of investment right now. It's like Mr. Kipling talking about the benefits of cake.

BUT i do that that hardware wise the PC is doing better than ever over consoles, especially considering the Xbox one is £450 right now. That is getting towards feasible comparable PC territory.

The big problem with console performance is that the system has to be on one PCB. It's kind of like the sacrifices made by 'gaming laptops'. They have a much smaller size footprint (or at least should do, the Xbone is freaking HUGE) and this means parts cannot be clocked as highly as their PC counterparts with discreet components. I'm not talking overclocking here im talking stock clock speeds. On the same architecture this will reduce performance pretty much in line with that scaling back (Whilst clock speed comparisons over different architectures/ technologies is a bit meaningless to be honest)

I really don't buy into the consoles being that much more efficient with their resources, especially as time has moved on. Whatever efficiency gains they do get over time with developers getting more familiar with the architecture are pretty much wiped out by their hardware aging in comparison to new parts that are always being released. The Xbox 360 for instance uses what is essentially a ATI X1800, the second best GPU of 2005, and they did pretty well with that. Now in 2013 they can't even break out of the same 720p territory. That's a bit sad. It's early days but this new generation of consoles seems almost as bloated as their PC counterparts.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Griffolion said:
Matt Wright said:
Steam now has more users than Xbox Live. There is a whole new generation who grew up playing on PC with titles like Minecraft or World of Tanks. There's a huge community who love playing their games on PC
Is there a source for that? I'm a tad skeptical.
It happened a few months ago.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129176-Steam-Surpasses-Xbox-Live-With-65-Million-Users

With a daily peak of 6 million users and 500k playing DOTA 2 (which is duelling with LOL as the most played MOBA) you cannot deny that Steam (and by extension PC gaming) is a juggernaut of massive proportions.

As for NVIDIA's dick waving contest with consoles I would have to agree at this point, with both not having true 1080 with 60fps across all launch titles is rather pathetic. If this trend continues with AAA titles a year from now then it will be less dick waving and more 'I told you so.'
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Colt47 said:
How long did you own each Xbox 360? Also how long did you own the PS3? I've owned my white brick of an Xbox 360 since 2007 and it still runs as good as the day I bought it. Unfortunately, I never owned the original PS3 so I really can't comment on that systems lifetime performance. I tend to take very good care of my consoles and still have a working launch PS2 with the hard drive (been playing old games I've bought off E-bay recently).
Launch 360s were notoriously shitty, and even the Playstation had the YLOD come up quite often. I'm betting you'll find as many people as not who went through multiple 360s by this point. I only know one person who's had a PS3 since launch that hasn't had to repair it themselves or have it serviced.

Honestly, though, if a console breaks, you have a lot fewer options. PC breaks? Replace the broken component. If your DVD drive fails on a 360, you're paying quite a bit. Or, you can swap out your DVD player in your PC for like 20 dollars. Power supply for your PS3? Like 3 times what a reasonable PSU would cost on a PC. And even if you're not tech savvy, having a computer guy replace a part won't pad the cost like a Sony/Microsoft service will.

Just opening a console voids the warranty. You haven't even done anything yet. And you probably need proprietary tools, or ones not normally in your kit.

shintakie10 said:
Everyone says this, yet it never feels true. My 360 needed to update constantly. Whenever I popped in new games, update. Whenever MSoft decided to change the dashboard, update. When I downloaded some title from the store, update. The only updates my computer needs is a antivirus update that does itself automatically in the background, a windows update that only requires 2 clicks to get through, and a graphics driver update that again takes 2 clicks to get through.
And updates on DD services and even some disc games that do so in the background. Also, you often can't even download a demo without an update. Oh, and they'll sign you out of live when one's required. Hope you weren't chatting with people or in other ways using the system. And if you reject the update, you stay signed out.


Consoles being a cheaper, stabler and low maintenance alternative to PC's have been a myth since the 360 and PS3 days.
Hell, most of those were out the window for the PS2.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Ed130 said:
It happened a few months ago.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129176-Steam-Surpasses-Xbox-Live-With-65-Million-Users
Yeah, but clearly they're not real gamers because they don't play the same games I do.

TizzytheTormentor said:
Nvidia claiming that buying PC's is better is as surprising as a Playstation Magazine telling people to buy Playstations.
Even less so, since Playstation magazine probably hasn't been burned by another console recently.
 

Bonecrusher

New member
Nov 20, 2009
214
0
0
Arina Love said:
PC unfortunately doesn't have any exclusive games that i want to play. i don't care about graphics i only care about games.
How?
There are more exclusives in PC than the total of PS3 + X360 + Wii + WiiU. There are many exclusive games for diferrent tastes...

a) Either people don't hear those games because popular gaming websites are console oriented and neglect PC games
b) Or even hundreds of exclusive games can't satisfy console gamers
 

Flunk

New member
Feb 17, 2008
915
0
0
Of course PCs are technologically superior. All the "Next-Gen" consoles are based on "PC" hardware and have to come in under a very specific price point. A machine that you can customize with all the doodads you want is clearly more free, open and useful with the possibility of much greater performance. Consoles have made some developers lazy, just writing for one set of hardware (look at NFS: Rivals) so I don't think they'll be dying until we all stop buying them.

I'm hoping for a console generation where nearly everything comes out on PC, that will thin the console hoards a bit. I still fear I'll have to buy one to play JRPGs, the Japanese have never been great proponents of PC gaming. I am eagerly awaiting Titanfall, I hope they let console players play vs PC players... hahaha just kidding, you know they'd never do that.
 

Strain42

New member
Mar 2, 2009
2,720
0
0
Abomination said:
Up next sports team A states that sports team A is the best.

Sports team B responds stating sports team B is the best.

Sports team C makes a declaration that it is better than both sports teams A & B.
I hate Sports team B...so damn much...cocky sons of bitches!!!

Everyone is arguing over what the best consoles are, and I'm just sitting here enjoying the hell out of my 3DS with no problems what so ever...
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Well it's extremely obvious that PC is superior to the current gen consoles.

graphics card maker Nvidia wants to make sure players don't forget about the other gaming system - no, not the Wii U, the PC.
Well that was a rather poor choice of words, we're on the Escapist where not having a PC is higher than or the equivalent of being Satan.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Bonecrusher said:
Arina Love said:
PC unfortunately doesn't have any exclusive games that i want to play. i don't care about graphics i only care about games.
How?
There are more exclusives in PC than the total of PS3 + X360 + Wii + WiiU. There are many exclusive games for diferrent tastes...

a) Either people don't hear those games because popular gaming websites are console oriented and neglect PC games
b) Or even hundreds of exclusive games can't satisfy console gamers
It doesn't matter how many exclusives there is if i'm not interested in any of them. i open my steam look for genres i like and there is nothing that remotely of interest to me. I want stuff on the level of Uncharted, Last of US, Beyond, Halo and J-RPGs.
If you have any suggestions feel free. Buyer's remorse for my 1000$ PC is pretty strong....
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
Arina Love said:
It doesn't matter how many exclusives there is if i'm not interested in any of them. i open my steam look for genres i like and there is nothing that remotely of interest to me. I want stuff on the level of Uncharted, Last of US, Beyond, Halo and J-RPGs.
If you have any suggestions feel free. Buyer's remorse for my 1000$ PC is pretty strong....
Perhaps you should've checked whether the games on Steam/GOG/etc suited your "tastes" (interesting that you easily dismissed 3500+ games) BEFORE you blew $1000 on your PC.

It's a bit silly to label PC exclusives as...well, exclusives really. At this point PC has more exclusives than all console generations put together, so "exclusive" no longer has any meaning as far as PC's go. That term largely applies to consoles because exclusives are the ONLY thing consoles use to one-up each other, especially in the latest generation where basically both PS4 and XBone = PC-in-a-box with a list of games they have taken hostage (in Yahtzee's words).
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Yuuki said:
Arina Love said:
It doesn't matter how many exclusives there is if i'm not interested in any of them. i open my steam look for genres i like and there is nothing that remotely of interest to me. I want stuff on the level of Uncharted, Last of US, Beyond, Halo and J-RPGs.
If you have any suggestions feel free. Buyer's remorse for my 1000$ PC is pretty strong....
Perhaps you should've checked whether the games on Steam/GOG/etc suited your "tastes" (interesting that you easily dismissed 3500+ games) BEFORE you blew $1000 on your PC.

It's a bit silly to label PC exclusives as...well, exclusives really. At this point PC has more exclusives than all console generations put together, so "exclusive" no longer has any meaning as far as PC's go. That term largely applies to consoles because exclusives are the ONLY thing consoles use to one-up each other, especially in the latest generation where basically both PS4 and XBone = PC-in-a-box with a list of games they have taken hostage (in Yahtzee's words).
why it's silly? They ARE exclusive for a platform they are on, ie PC. So if people want to play them they have to get PC. it doesn't matter how many of them are, exclusive means exclusive. Consoles PC-in-a-box is right BUT not being slowed down by API and being single spec machine matters (John Carmack words) ( https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/50277106856370176 )
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
taciturnCandid said:
PS4 price point..... plus playstation plus.

2 years of PS+ is 100$

So to have a ps4 for two years is already 500$

PCPartPicker part list [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1] / Price breakdown by merchant [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1/by_merchant/] / Benchmarks [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2bBw1/benchmarks/]

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox] ($117.96 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus M5A78L-M LX PLUS Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-m5a78lmlxplus] ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f314900cl9d8gbsr] ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/western-digital-internal-hard-drive-wd10ezex] ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-r78702gd5toc] ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/hec-case-enterprise] ($9.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-power-supply-cx500] ($25.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-gfc02050] ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $516.88
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 20:27 EST-0500)


Pretty much the same price as a ps4+2 years of ps+ and outdoes the ps4. If you already have an OS or use steam os then it is less.
This is the thing that always fascinates me. The fact that people STILL assert that PC gaming is somehow "more expensive" than console gaming.

If you compare how much you'll spend over the course of a console generation to how much you'll spend gaming on a PC over the same period of time the difference is staggering. Even if you don't pay for online services like Live or PS+ or fail to factor in things like Steam Sales or Amazon rebates.

I can tell you from personal experience that, though I game far more often on my PC, I've likely dished out almost twice as much money on my 360 than I have on my PC in the pursuit of gaming entertainment.

Really, anyone that still makes that claim sounds like an idiot. Sorry to be blunt about it, but there it is. You can argue all day that the base level of knowledge need be higher for PC gaming, in terms of how to build a PC, and I'll agree. It is more difficult than just going out to by a console. But, don't even try to tell me PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming. Just don't. You'll sound foolish.

Aeonknight said:
I would disagree. Consoles have the advantage of being idiot proof over PC. They always have and always will. Though you may be hard pressed to find someone like that on the internet, there are people who don't know which PC parts to get, so they'd rather just stop by GameStop and pick up a console. And that market is much larger as well. Consoles aren't going anywhere, at least not until public schools start teaching PC architecture (which they should.)
I agree entirely, save for two things. Newer consoles aren't quite as "idiot proof" as they once were, and PC gaming has become much, much easier in recent years. (Almost) everything is plug-and-play. Though there is still a gap between the two in terms of "convenience".

However, console gamers pay for that "convenience" with exuberantly higher price tags. On everything.

Nowadays, if you've got the money I would, ironically[footnote]Based on the average perception on the differing pay-walls for console and PC gaming.[/footnote], recommend console gaming. Whereas if you're in a position where frugal-ness is a must, I'd recommend PC gaming.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Man Nvidia really is still throwing a hissy fit about all 3 console manufacturers going with AMD instead of them huh?
I mean I really just read these and I just get the image of the CEO of Nvidia throwing a temper tantrum and crying because Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo didn't go with cards that would have driven the costs of these consoles skyrocketing.
I mean of course PC is gonna be superior, but I also don't give 2 shites about having a Nvidia card because my AMD card does just fine and doesn't cost me an arm and a leg along with the soul of my first born child.
 
Mar 5, 2011
690
0
0
songnar said:
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.

In terms of gaming - a standardized product like the consoles or, soon, the Steam Box is much easier to plan for, requires less testing across the dozens of possible hardware combinations and is, thus, somewhat easier to plan for.

I love my PC but I just don't see its continued viability moving forward.
PC gaming is cheaper then ever. A $500 PC will preform better then both an Xbone or PS4.
 

Drauger

New member
Dec 22, 2011
190
0
0
Well no shit?, I just don't get it, there are some games I play on pc, and some that are console exclusive, why should anyone limit to a console or a pc, besides everyone has a pc....
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
Yes Mister corporate Troll, tell us the obvious fact that PC are superior since they are not restricted by timetables and release shedules and that magic "feature final" closure date....

Captain obvious there sure as fck told us somethign significant here! That he and the company he works for are dumb trolls that lack any sort of intelligence as far as marketing goes.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
songnar said:
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.
This was true in the past but not anymore.

At least in my country, the next-gen consoles will cost as much as a moderately powerful PC. And that's BEFORE you buy any games and controllers which in my country are almost twice as expensive as they are in the US.

So yea, consoles have become almost as expensive as PC's where I live, so the "consoles are cheaper" thing no longer really applies. Its also worth mentioning that PC gaming is much cheaper in the long run if you only buy PC games on steam sales or get other similar discounts.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Of course hey are superior. New consoles are not gaming consoles, they are just weak and limited PCs sold for too much. If the new consoles were actual consoles, you know, plug and play, playing off the disc, all that jazz, then we could argue, now they are just like PCs, except less.

songnar said:
That's as may be, Matt Wright, but if you cannot provide that superior experience at a price competitive with the console option the flailing and failing global economy simply will not be able to bear the price.
Except that it can. Thats the whole point.
Also can we stop spreading the economic panic? The crysis is over.


erttheking said:
And cue the people tearing their throats out over which piece of hardware they enjoy playing their games on better in 3, 2, 1.
There really is no more need for tearing as the only option is PC. Or PC from microsoft. Or PC from Sony. Well ok there is WiiU but thats hardly a competitor. its doing its own thing on the side.

ike42 said:
And of course none of this talk from Nvidia has anything to do with both the Xbone and the PS4 being built on ATI architecture...
Both of the came to Nvidia first. Nvidia laughed them out of the building with what they offered. So they went to AMD. AMD signed a contract. Id say Nvidia is in better situation considering how the consoles are going.

rofltehcat said:
Even that third party Steambox they showcased a few days ago had a AMD GPU... I think they are starting to panic. Even if PC gaming does great this console generation, Nvidia will be in for some very hard years.
Very unlikely. Nvidia cards were always better for gaming. AMD cards are better for raw calculation power, which is good whne your doing massive calculation and sensory input proceossing, but as far as gaming graphics Nvidia had the upper hand for years now. Also Nvidia has been working with developers, actively and for free, for a decade, thus most optimiations for PC you see will be very Nvidia centrific. Nvidia is in better position than AMD. And lets not even start about processors where AMD STILL havent shown anything that could rival the i processors.

Colt47 said:
It's almost as if Nvidia forgets that the primary reason consoles exist is to provide a stable, low maintenance means of enjoying video game software. The PC will always be better than consoles as far as performance, but it pays for it in stability and a need for regular maintenance.
That was true only up till this genration.

Kheapathic said:
The Escapist has to cater to their largest audience, otherwise they run risk of losing clicks.
Polls have shown that on escapist PC gamers are a minority.

Nieroshai said:
I have a PC to do what a console can't, which is much. I do, however, have consoles to do what a PC can't, such as load in a timely manner, standardize drivers, upload patches without prompting me, run at good graphics and framerate without having to buy new hardware every two years, and--with the current console gen--snap from ANY game, no matter how intensive the requirements, straight to netflix, and install a new game, while chatting with my friends. My PC CAN do that laundry list of things, but I tell you it WON'T. It will crash if I try half that list, regardless of my actual CAPABILITY to Alt-Tab to other windows and apps.
So you claim that a PC cant do something, then go on to lsit things that PC does better than consoles. Especially worth noting - good graphics on consoles (hah, thats a funny one).
If your PC crashes on these things then the fault is between keyboard and chair and not in the PC itself. I havent seen a program you cant alt-tab form since, well, 2001 i think. My PC does all the things you listed and does not crash. And i can easily type on this forum, watch a video stream, chat in said streams chat channel and play a game, all at the same time. in fact last week i did exactly that. and my PC is 5 years old, so no need for replacing every 2 years.

James Crook said:
Yeah sure, the PC is far superior to Next-gen consoles and ARE affordable if you know your stuff and get around to building one.
But not with your GPUs, Nvidia.
Also, come back to me when you get your partners at Ubisoft to actually abide by your words and do some work optimizing their games.
Nvidia GPUs are affordable. Whne you buy AMD gpu, you are getting your money worth - less money, less worth.
Also Nvidia "parnership" is same as all toher nvidia partnerships. they send in engineers, for free, to developers to hlep with optimizing (for thier cars obviuosly). it is up to Ubisoft to use that advise or not, and ubisoft seems to not be doing that enough.

Griffolion said:
Windows is designed to run on potentially billions of hardware combinations, and thus cannot be optimised for any single one of those specifically. Consoles are designed specifically for one hardware combination. That tight vertical integration means they can make the OS as tightly coupled to the hardware as possible, allowing it to squeeze the most out of it as possible. Which is why a console with far inferior specs to a PC can still produce similar results to the PC in a game (graphics wise).

Oh, and just a quick FYI in case anyone hasn't already worked this out. The only reason nVidia have been banging on about the superiority of PC gaming in comparison to the latest consoles because you won't find a nVidia GPU in either the PS4 or the XB1. They did so badly with the PS3 last round that they were dropped like hot potatoes, coupled with the fact that AMD are so desperate for business that I'll bet they're practically selling the Jaguar chipsets for almost cost. Just take anything nVidia says in this regard with a large pinch of butthurt.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that, tech wise, we're doing good for gaming right now. The XB1 and PS4 are both competent with good futures, and PC gaming will stride forth ever in the vanguard.
Technically correct, practically not anymore. PC hardware has become so standartized you will have ALL Nvidia cards use exactly same driver and the like. they are not identical hardware but close enough to optimize. Console CAN NOT produce similar results. consoles games run on low resolution ultra low settings, something PC users would use only when they are running on bellow minimum specs. graphic wise consoles are cocroaches that seem to not die even when radiation fallout is falling on them.
Also Nvidia was the first target for next gen GPUs, but they said no, so MS and Sony went to AMD. Now that we know the specs of new consoles i cna understand Nvidia, they were always the ones pushing for stronger hardware and AMD always played catchup. The Jaguar is like the Jaguar console. Much roaring, actually crap.

Also no, neither XB1 nor PS4 is competent. They feel like they took a 4 year old PC, installed a 15 year old OS on it and called it a "new product".



Bonecrusher said:
Arina Love said:
PC unfortunately doesn't have any exclusive games that i want to play. i don't care about graphics i only care about games.
How?
There are more exclusives in PC than the total of PS3 + X360 + Wii + WiiU. There are many exclusive games for diferrent tastes...

a) Either people don't hear those games because popular gaming websites are console oriented and neglect PC games
b) Or even hundreds of exclusive games can't satisfy console gamers
Well to be honest i have to give credit to the whole exclusinve things not beign worth it. The only exclusives on console ever that i was interested in were all in Sonys teritory. i never cared about Nintendo or MS exclusives. In fact the reason i didnt buy Wii was because i havent seen a single game that i would want to play.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
Strazdas said:
rofltehcat said:
Even that third party Steambox they showcased a few days ago had a AMD GPU... I think they are starting to panic. Even if PC gaming does great this console generation, Nvidia will be in for some very hard years.
Very unlikely. Nvidia cards were always better for gaming. AMD cards are better for raw calculation power, which is good whne your doing massive calculation and sensory input proceossing, but as far as gaming graphics Nvidia had the upper hand for years now. Also Nvidia has been working with developers, actively and for free, for a decade, thus most optimiations for PC you see will be very Nvidia centrific. Nvidia is in better position than AMD. And lets not even start about processors where AMD STILL havent shown anything that could rival the i processors.
This is all nice and great and in the end I'd like to see the "good" company do fine on the market, not just the "cheaper" company. However, things do not always work that way.
With both major consoles and even the WiiU using AMD chips, AMD has an incredibly large part of the gaming GPU market cornered and effectively out of the grasp of Nvidia for around the next 10 years. If AMD play their cards right, they can slowly push ahead.
If anything, you can already see them push ahead: the ~500$ Steambox prototype revealed a few days ago is using an AMD chip as well. AMD will continue pushing into PC gaming and unlike Nvidia they now have a huge power base to use to their advantage.

About the optimization: Yes, they have been doing a good job in the past and I sure hope they will continue to do so in the future. However, with all of the major consoles using AMD chips (of very comparable properties), optimizing games to run well on AMD hardware will be a lot more feasible.

Considering this is really primarily a GPU vs. GPU standoff, AMD vs. intel CPUs doesn't really play a role, does it? If anything, the major consoles using AMD CPUs as well gives AMD a great platform to use for pushing on that front as well.

Of course they may play it wrong, spread themselves over too many fronts or even grow too confident and lazy. But Nvidia is in a really tight spot right now and their main competitor looks more powerful than ever.
 

ike42

New member
Feb 25, 2009
226
0
0
Strazdas said:
I love Nvidia and everything else sucks. Slurp slurp. Come join the PC master race because we're so much better than you.
You are wrong and will accept none of the evidence to the contrary. Just because you're an Nvidia fanboy doesn't mean that everyone else is. Dedicated machines that have games made specifically for them will always be a better value overall than constantly having to tweak with games to get them optimized on your system since there is no way that out of the box they will work will all configurations.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Pr0 said:
truckspond said:
PC has a larger library including EVERY previous console generation and the GTX Titan kicks the crap out of EVERY consoles GPU so it's not really that surprising. If you want high-end gaming just put in 4 titans in quad-SLI and crank everything up to 11 at 4K+ resolutions. Can you get such power in a console?
Even as a PC Gaming Elitist myself I have to ask if you can get that kind of power in under a 400 dollar package...cause last I checked that was about half the price of one Titan.

There is no question that running four titans in quad SLI will hammer the ever living dogshit out of anything that any console can do, but you've essentially also spent $4,000 to do it.
One console costs half a titan. Titan is extremely overpriced simply by the fact of being the best around and being able to get away with it. You can buy a card that has 90% of Titans power for half the price. Thats a 7th generation one. ALso, in order to beat consoles, from what the consoles are showing, you dont need a titan. You can build a PC for 500 dollars and it will be on part with current consoles. However PC gamers were never going as low as console power thus the price difference for average PC. because average PC is much faster.

MrHide-Patten said:
I guess I'll just haveto use the high end one at work and endure an xbox controller.
Not everyone can game at work.

Aeonknight said:
Consoles aren't going anywhere, at least not until public schools start teaching PC architecture (which they should.)
Erm what? They were doing that for over a decade here.....

Furism said:
Or, ideally, an external GPU that I can connect/disconnect from my laptop. When I'm at home I can get high-end graphics, but then I can still travel and have all my stuff with me without going through the hassles of synchronizing docs and all that. I've seen some prototypes Thunderbold-connected external GPUs (until recently, USB couldn't be as fast as Thunderbolt) but they were not market ready (being prototypes). I think Nvidia should investigate this more than small form factor PCs. Anybody can build small form-factor PCs. Not everybody can make an external GPU.
So far the only option for this i saw is if you made your own power supply for that GPU because the USB ports cant handle the power load needed to power the GPU, and they just dont manufacture any that would have a prebuilt power supply like the larger external HDDs. I agree that this would be a good thing, id love to have something like this to kick my laptop into gear. seriuosly, its GPU is runningo n full load while the rest is on ~20% load because its a laptop GPU....

GundamSentinel said:
For me the big advantage of a console it that you can buy it and don't have to worry about it any more. Just put in a game, lie on the couch and play it.
PC cheaper? Maybe, but not for me.
Except that this is not true at all. you cant just buy a console and forget about it or put a game and instantly play it. that stopped beign true since this generation launched.
Also do you buy games? If yes, then PC is cheaper for you.

Artlover said:
That is not next gen. That is not even current gen. The Xbox360 and PS3 already do 720 @ 60fps with no issues at all and can do 1080 @ 30fps with a bit of effort. Hell, even the Gamecube from the 6th generation can do 1080.

A decent computer from 10 years ago can easily run 1960x1280 @ 60 fps all day long.

Lets ignore GFX for a minute. Let's talk CPU. Lets look at the XB1 as an example. Do you realize that it's actual performance is barely any better than the Xbox360. Why? While, the XB1 has 8 cores. 2 are reserved for the OS, only 6 are used for gaming, and are only running at 1.75 GHz. The X360 was 3 cores at 3.2 GHz. That translates into 10.5GHz vs 9.6GHz of processing power. Not much differences, and it shows.

I'm not impressed by what I have seen by either the XB1 or the PS4. Neither gave me any reason to buy them. Every game demo I've seen does nothing but reinforce the idea that the Xbox360 and PS3 are equally as good and I might as well just keep my old systems and my money.
Not true. both 360 and PS3 had to do upscaling to even reach 720. They were never designed to run native 720 let alone 1080.
Yes, my 10 year old PC runs on 1600x1200 @ 60 fps, but no on modern games. Mostly used for internet browsing only nowadays, but it still works.

The CPU power comaprisons are never fair when you look at GHZ only. a single core of 3.0GHZ i5 can do twice as much calculations as a 10 year old Pentium 3.0 ghz core. Manufacturing differences allwed that. Thats why i series are so revolutionary, same frequency, more power. AMD still has no answer to this other than "throw 8 cores in". The point is processors evolve in more ways than just ghz.
That being said, current consoles use tablet underpowered GPUs, so i wouldnt really expect that 10.5ghz to work like 10.5ghz. ALso more cores is much harder to program so most people wont bother past 2-3 cores. In this regard old consoles were better.

rofltehcat said:
Strazdas said:
rofltehcat said:
Even that third party Steambox they showcased a few days ago had a AMD GPU... I think they are starting to panic. Even if PC gaming does great this console generation, Nvidia will be in for some very hard years.
Very unlikely. Nvidia cards were always better for gaming. AMD cards are better for raw calculation power, which is good whne your doing massive calculation and sensory input proceossing, but as far as gaming graphics Nvidia had the upper hand for years now. Also Nvidia has been working with developers, actively and for free, for a decade, thus most optimiations for PC you see will be very Nvidia centrific. Nvidia is in better position than AMD. And lets not even start about processors where AMD STILL havent shown anything that could rival the i processors.
This is all nice and great and in the end I'd like to see the "good" company do fine on the market, not just the "cheaper" company. However, things do not always work that way.
With both major consoles and even the WiiU using AMD chips, AMD has an incredibly large part of the gaming GPU market cornered and effectively out of the grasp of Nvidia for around the next 10 years. If AMD play their cards right, they can slowly push ahead.
If anything, you can already see them push ahead: the ~500$ Steambox prototype revealed a few days ago is using an AMD chip as well. AMD will continue pushing into PC gaming and unlike Nvidia they now have a huge power base to use to their advantage.

About the optimization: Yes, they have been doing a good job in the past and I sure hope they will continue to do so in the future. However, with all of the major consoles using AMD chips (of very comparable properties), optimizing games to run well on AMD hardware will be a lot more feasible.

Considering this is really primarily a GPU vs. GPU standoff, AMD vs. intel CPUs doesn't really play a role, does it? If anything, the major consoles using AMD CPUs as well gives AMD a great platform to use for pushing on that front as well.

Of course they may play it wrong, spread themselves over too many fronts or even grow too confident and lazy. But Nvidia is in a really tight spot right now and their main competitor looks more powerful than ever.
Yes, currently all consoles are using AMD GPUs because they didnt want to buy a more powerful GPU that Nvidia offered, and went for cheaper and slower AMD. if AMD is making money on this, it is very good for them, does not mean Nvidia is wrong about PCs though. Nvidia is better at gaming graphics, and to be honest we already saw problems with new consoles grpahic prowess som AMD didnt disprove that.
The cheap Steambox is going to use AMD because AMD is cheaper. power comes at a price and Nvidia always seem to be the kind of company that would try to shove in the most powerful stuff in leadign the market and ignore the low end consumers, thats where AMD always came in and satisfied the need for slow and cheap GPUs.
Nvidia has quite a fair grasp on Pc gaming. They help the developers optimize games for their cards. AMD doesnt. they are very much PC centric and were so even before they lost the consoles. they just didnt advertise it that much. there is a reason Nvidia logo comes up before every second PC game. they actaully worked on optimizing it. for thier cards of course.
I agree CPU is hard an issue now, however considering the CPU they are putting into new xbox i think it may become an issue after all. will see.
The reason i mentioned CPUs is because Nvidia and Intel is same company versus AMD and Radeon (renamed AMD, because AMD needs to be AMD and confuse people). So both GPU and CPU market shares affect both sides. And lets face it, i series are quite dominant when it comes to PC CPUs.

ike42 said:
Strazdas said:
I love Nvidia and everything else sucks. Slurp slurp. Come join the PC master race because we're so much better than you.
You are wrong and will accept none of the evidence to the contrary. Just because you're an Nvidia fanboy doesn't mean that everyone else is. Dedicated machines that have games made specifically for them will always be a better value overall than constantly having to tweak with games to get them optimized on your system since there is no way that out of the box they will work will all configurations.
Maybe you should do some more research before going on insulting people next time?
New consoles are as dedicated machines as PCs were 10 years ago. PCs are more game dedicared now than consoles thanks to consoles being the very same PC but limited. Both new consoles are programming for same APIs that you program for PC, essentially making programming extremely close. Heck, Xbox uses the very same directx that PC uses. Noone is programming directly to hardware. theres probably not more than a dozen people in the world that could. Thanks to new consoels using PC architecture, any optimization done for consoles will automatically be also done for PC. PC games have been working "out of the box" for a long whole now, maybe you should try some.
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
Strazdas said:
Not everyone can game at work.
One of the upsides of being an Indie Dev... granted I only do it at lunchtime once a month for exclusives.

GundamSentinel said:
PC cheaper? Maybe, but not for me.
It's the main reason why I don't/haven't, in AUS they really bend us over the table for the cost of hardwrae... and downloadable software. It's bad enough that the Goverment actually had to step in and ask the shits like Adobe 'why?'.

And analysts wonder why teh piracy rate in Austrlia is (one of) the highest in the world.
 

GundamSentinel

The leading man, who else?
Aug 23, 2009
4,448
0
0
Strazdas said:
GundamSentinel said:
For me the big advantage of a console it that you can buy it and don't have to worry about it any more. Just put in a game, lie on the couch and play it.
PC cheaper? Maybe, but not for me.
Except that this is not true at all. you cant just buy a console and forget about it or put a game and instantly play it. that stopped beign true since this generation launched.
Also do you buy games? If yes, then PC is cheaper for you.
I can't remember a single instance where I had to fuss around to get a console game to work (and I play a lot of them). Patches? Sure, but those take a couple of seconds with my internet and are very much a handsfree affair. The only times I ever got my hands dirty with my console was when I had to setup my internet, NAT and mic properly. Sure, autopatching solves most things with PC games as well, but it's still a difference. With PC games it's very much a YMMV thing depending on your hardware, but even with newer games (or maybe especially with newer games) I often have to struggle to get them working they way they're supposed to. Different people will have different experiences with it, but for me console gaming has always been a stressless breeze.

Also, anyone who says a PC is always backwards compatible is a liar. D:<

The difference between the price of new PC games and new console games is often marginal. Sales and smart shopping can cancel most of the diffence out. I agree, PC games are generally cheaper, especially via digital distributors, but not enough for me to make up for the costs of upgrading my hardware. I positively need a decent laptop for my work, so for PC gaming my options are either getting an additional good gaming PC or a getting a complete gaming laptop. Both of which are just more expensive than a console, even when considering the additional price for games. And if you shop smartly, console games can be gotten very cheaply as well.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
GundamSentinel said:
I can't remember a single instance where I had to fuss around to get a console game to work (and I play a lot of them). Patches? Sure, but those take a couple of seconds with my internet and are very much a handsfree affair. The only times I ever got my hands dirty with my console was when I had to setup my internet, NAT and mic properly. Sure, autopatching solves most things with PC games as well, but it's still a difference. With PC games it's very much a YMMV thing depending on your hardware, but even with newer games (or maybe especially with newer games) I often have to struggle to get them working they way they're supposed to. Different people will have different experiences with it, but for me console gaming has always been a stressless breeze.

Also, anyone who says a PC is always backwards compatible is a liar. D:<

The difference between the price of new PC games and new console games is often marginal. Sales and smart shopping can cancel most of the diffence out. I agree, PC games are generally cheaper, especially via digital distributors, but not enough for me to make up for the costs of upgrading my hardware. I positively need a decent laptop for my work, so for PC gaming my options are either getting an additional good gaming PC or a getting a complete gaming laptop. Both of which are just more expensive than a console, even when considering the additional price for games. And if you shop smartly, console games can be gotten very cheaply as well.
You are probably talking about the previuos consoles, which for some people worked, yes. The new ones, however, will have all the same problems PC has and more. On the other hand last time i had to do anything with a game to "make it work" was in 2009, if we exclude when i tried running 15 year old games which was a compactability issue and even then it was solved and i played the game (dungeon keeper 2 if interested). PC was always a stressless experience for me, there is no struggle.
PC hardware of equal power costs same as new consoles now. but people buy much faster PCs and then say they cost more. Of course faster PC will cost more. And you really need to play either launch day only or couple games a year to not make up the difference.
TO game on PC you do not need to buy a PC that is mroe expensive than a console. If you want to game with better graphics than a console - you do. Or you could buy an expensive PC once and play games for 5 years on better graphics. To each his own of course, and noone can force you to buy a PC, but PC is no longer the expensive option.
 

Boogie Knight

New member
Oct 17, 2011
115
0
0
I can't help shaking my head whenever Angry Joe goes bananas whenever his fancy PC gets hit with technical issues because the game itself is ass. The hard truth is that the games with the high end graphics which the glorious PC master race loves to wank off to are almost entirely a complete mess with more bugs than a sleazy motel and servers which suck more than servers in shoddy restaurants. The rambling about superior graphics is just subservience to the idiotic mentality which the gaming industry has been hyping to get around the lack of innovation by AAA developers in aspects of gaming which really matter.

Besides, I kinda hate shooters, or at least most modern shooters which are entirely focused on multiplayer at the expense of singleplayer campaigns. Last I checked, there aren't too many JRPGs which I can legally (emphasis legally) acquire on PC. Yeah, yeah, they don't show of the graphical power of the machines they run on, but are less bug and glitch prone compared to Western counterparts.
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
The big problem with console performance is that the system has to be on one PCB. It's kind of like the sacrifices made by 'gaming laptops'. They have a much smaller size footprint (or at least should do, the Xbone is freaking HUGE) and this means parts cannot be clocked as highly as their PC counterparts with discreet components. I'm not talking overclocking here i'm talking stock clock speeds.
That's not entirely true unless qualified with the fact that they can't engineer a cooling solution that goes above budget. But you're generally right.

Scrumpmonkey said:
I really don't buy into the consoles being that much more efficient with their resources, especially as time has moved on. Whatever efficiency gains they do get over time with developers getting more familiar with the architecture are pretty much wiped out by their hardware aging in comparison to new parts that are always being released. The Xbox 360 for instance uses what is essentially a ATI X1800, the second best GPU of 2005, and they did pretty well with that. Now in 2013 they can't even break out of the same 720p territory. That's a bit sad. It's early days but this new generation of consoles seems almost as bloated as their PC counterparts.
They actually are, mainly in the OS' memory management. Developers also tend to have lower level access to hardware, the less abstraction the better performance at the tradeoff of ease of development.

You generally find the early releases of any next-gen console to be pretty bad in terms of optimisation. At the end of any hardware cycle, the devs are taking full advantage of concurrency in their programming practices. It's a nightmare to debug and has tons of problems if not done right, but when done right can squeeze out every last iota of performance from your machine. Given the proverbial floodgates get opened to them in terms of HW performance at the beginning of a new cycle, they see no need to program concurrency into the games anymore, not until next gen requirements truly start catching up. Hence why you never really see any massive leaps in performance from one to the next, it takes years of iterative steps to truly tap next gen hardware. This, AND coupled with the fact that they have a new architecture/SDK to get familiar with, make a game for it, and get it out on a tight schedule. That stuff doesn't just happen.
 

BlameTheWizards

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
Griffolion said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
The big problem with console performance is that the system has to be on one PCB. It's kind of like the sacrifices made by 'gaming laptops'. They have a much smaller size footprint (or at least should do, the Xbone is freaking HUGE) and this means parts cannot be clocked as highly as their PC counterparts with discreet components. I'm not talking overclocking here i'm talking stock clock speeds.
That's not entirely true unless qualified with the fact that they can't engineer a cooling solution that goes above budget. But you're generally right.

Scrumpmonkey said:
I really don't buy into the consoles being that much more efficient with their resources, especially as time has moved on. Whatever efficiency gains they do get over time with developers getting more familiar with the architecture are pretty much wiped out by their hardware aging in comparison to new parts that are always being released. The Xbox 360 for instance uses what is essentially a ATI X1800, the second best GPU of 2005, and they did pretty well with that. Now in 2013 they can't even break out of the same 720p territory. That's a bit sad. It's early days but this new generation of consoles seems almost as bloated as their PC counterparts.

They actually are, mainly in the OS' memory management. Developers also tend to have lower level access to hardware, the less abstraction the better performance at the tradeoff of ease of development.

You generally find the early releases of any next-gen console to be pretty bad in terms of optimisation. At the end of any hardware cycle, the devs are taking full advantage of concurrency in their programming practices. It's a nightmare to debug and has tons of problems if not done right, but when done right can squeeze out every last iota of performance from your machine. Given the proverbial floodgates get opened to them in terms of HW performance at the beginning of a new cycle, they see no need to program concurrency into the games anymore, not until next gen requirements truly start catching up. Hence why you never really see any massive leaps in performance from one to the next, it takes years of iterative steps to truly tap next gen hardware. This, AND coupled with the fact that they have a new architecture/SDK to get familiar with, make a game for it, and get it out on a tight schedule. That stuff doesn't just happen.
We are kind of making the same point :p. As time moves on the optimization of standardized parts gets better (i agree on the memory management point too). Look at "The last of Us" that game looked fantastic considering the hardware restrictions of the PS3. But hardware also moves on so by the time we 'unlock the potential' of this generation there will be some new Crysis equivalent burning our GPUs at 4K resolution.

The thing is that games are more GPU dependent than ever. The utilization of something like windows 7 in the background on your GPU is almost non existent. Also if you are running something at above 8GB of ram the memory footprint of your OS won't be that much of an issue too. Windows Vista may have been impactful on resources back in 2006 but i don't think the GPU/CPU imprint of the operating system is much of an issue.
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
We are kind of making the same point :p.
I'm not really too sure we were, but fair enough.

Scrumpmonkey said:
As time moves on the optimization of standardized parts gets better (i agree on the memory management point too).
You're going to have to explain to me what that sentence means.

Scrumpmonkey said:
Look at "The last of Us" that game looked fantastic considering the hardware restrictions of the PS3. But hardware also moves on so by the time we 'unlock the potential' of this generation there will be some new Crysis equivalent burning our GPUs at 4K resolution.
You're right, but you're going to have to explain to me your point about all that. Of course there will be a new engine that's a GPU killer as time goes on.

Scrumpmonkey said:
The thing is that games are more GPU dependent than ever. The utilization of something like windows 7 in the background on your GPU is almost non existent. Also if you are running something at above 8GB of ram the memory footprint of your OS won't be that much of an issue too. Windows Vista may have been impactful on resources back in 2006 but i don't think the GPU/CPU imprint of the operating system is much of an issue.
Yeah, that's true in a sense. The dependency ratio of games have simply shifted more over to GPU's, since advancements in parallel processing and methods in how to render using the multitudes of FMA streams found in GPU's have become more reliable. At one point it was better to send to the CPU for a lot of things, but no more. And yes, the OS memory footprint becomes a non-issue at a certain memory level, but what's your point?

(Please don't take any of this the wrong way, I think I'm just missing the point you're trying to make)
 

ToastyMozart

New member
Mar 13, 2012
224
0
0
THIS JUST IN: Experts are claiming that grass is still green, the sky is still blue, and Chris Brown is still an asshole. Stay tuned for our interview with a local man who claims that eating food saved him from dying of starvation.
 

ToastyMozart

New member
Mar 13, 2012
224
0
0
Griffolion said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
As time moves on the optimization of standardized parts gets better (i agree on the memory management point too).
You're going to have to explain to me what that sentence means.
I think he's just stating that the consoles only coming with 1 design permutation means that unlike PC, where you have to optimize for about 6 or 7 CPU architectures and 8 or 9 GPU architectures, each with a number of different versions with different degrees of power, developers working on console titles can focus exclusively on squeezing every last drop of potential out of the available hardware. This is compounded by the fact that they can have their rendering engine interact with the GPU on a very low level, while pretty much all PC games have to go through DirectX or OpenGL, which is easier to work with for supporting a multitude of GPUs, but is much less efficient.

That sort of low-level GPU interaction is also what AMD's trying to achieve with their "Mantle" API (which hopefully catches on and Nvidia starts doing too. Microsoft has REALLY gotten lazy with improving DirectX).

Basically, if Super Mario Galaxy was a PC title, there is no way you would be able to run it as well as the Wii does if you were using the same ATI Hollywood chip in your tower.
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
ToastyMozart said:
Oh, that's what he was saying? Wow, I really didn't get that from his sentence.

For PC you don't optimise for multiple architectures unless you have some time and money on your hands. Direct X and Open GL are abstractions designed to take the hassle of optimisation out at the tradeoff of proximity to the silicon.

Mantle's great, but is for a very small subset of GPU's, currently only used by one game. What's needed is an open low level API that both nVidia and AMD can work on together.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Please don't mistake me for an idiot because I couldn't understand what he was saying. It was more to do with his word choices than the material at hand.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
truckspond said:
PC has a larger library including EVERY previous console generation and the GTX Titan kicks the crap out of EVERY consoles GPU so it's not really that surprising. If you want high-end gaming just put in 4 titans in quad-SLI and crank everything up to 11 at 4K+ resolutions. Can you get such power in a console?
It's truly pathetic that a $300-$500 console should not get such performance as a $4000 PC.
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
This is correct, however the spokesman seems a little arrogant, not appearing arrogant is part of good PR, this is something that would do everyone well.
 

Aesir23

New member
Jul 2, 2009
2,861
0
0
I will admit that I always get a bit confused when PC gamers say that PC gaming is cheaper. I'm well aware that they mean the games are cheaper but my mind always makes the jump to the cost of the hardware which is definitely not cheaper.

Regarding the PC vs Console issue, I think a lot of it comes down to personal taste. At the end of the day I just want a machine that plays games. I don't want to fiddle with it to get a game to work and I don't get any satisfaction out of upgrading my PC or delight in how much power it may have. On top of that, I prefer to buy physical copies of games over digital distribution. Considering that the closest Best Buy is half an hour's drive from my house and the two stores within a 20 minute walk (that sell video games) have a pretty pitiful selection of PC games, PC gaming just isn't my thing.

To be on topic, yes, PCs are far superior to consoles and that's like saying the grass is green or, to be current, that snow is white. However, like many have said, this seems to be a bit of a fit that Nvidia is throwing over the fact that the new consoles use AMD cards.