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.
