The Tale of M and S

[Machine Man 1992]

I'm rather impressed with Yahtzee's writing chops. I've read JAM, and I thought it was hilarious, and this articles proves that was no fluke.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I would have switched the two letters in the title but otherwise great read.

I think that would have given the wrong idea.
Also that's something I'd expect more from Jim than Yahtzee.

Mostly I'm just glad that we live in a world where nothing like that could ever happen...ever.

 

[Emmenia]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

Yes, I really do think the MS marketing department is that much out of touch with what their consumers want.

As much as I'd love a conspiracy theory it's going to be pretty much this. I've worked for and with some of the bigger companies and it never ceases to amaze me the way decisions are made. It can often be one persons vision who has that special ability to influence those around them to go along with it.

I also like how Mr. N just plays with the kids completely ignoring what Mr. S and Mr. M are doing. And Mr. PC watches the whole thing from his penthouse with a smug grin on his face the whole time.

 

[Lightknight]

I dunno, arguing about price always rang hollow. I mean at least say you're too lazy to spend a half hour building your own.

These $400 machines are practically a lie. I've seen some super efficient ones but often times there's a significant catch.

Saying 'X is "practically" Y' is pointless. It only serves the purpose of implying something (usually insidious) with no real conviction of just outright saying it. Example: You're practically a monkey.

Well, it's the wording. Saying that they're gaming pc's that can play any current game in 1080p is probably a true statement. It's just so uninformative that, while not being a lie it practically is. It's like me claiming that I can travel through time. I can, we all can and do. I've traveled from the 1980's to tell you this. Of course, I travel one day at a time and it takes 24 hours per day.

But these things lie in a lot of small ways, typically by not including things like screens and peripherals (such as a wifi adapter, keyboards and mouse, speakers)

Okay tech man. Quick: Name a major video card chip maker that isn't nvidia or radeon.
Name a major cpu chip maker that isn't intel or amd.

What does that have to do with anything? Video Games routinely fail to account for certain types of video cards. If you've regularly pc gamed you'd have run into it from time to time. Whether it's older cards or newer cards, the end result is still the same. Here are some examples of it happening more recently:

1. A video dedicated to circumventing unsupported video card errors when Splinter Cell failed to support more current cards. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kAhfGKpqU8]
2. Diablo III [http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5151265737]
3. Medal of Honor: Airborne [http://steamcommunity.com/app/24840/discussions/0/810924765078163034/] (recently surfacing issue on an older game just to toss that around, not much you can do about that if you want a new gaming rig)

You can also get failed to render errors that more commonly happen when your card is too old. Fortunately, companies are better at updating drivers for their cards but five year old cards don't get a lot in that way. Remember, we're talking about two machines that are intended to last 5 years or more.

Let's look at the difference 5 years make (console generation). I'm using Oblivion and Skyrim as generally nice bookend games of this console generation (so far) that was also available on the pc and the consoles. I'm also specifically using them because you incorrectly use it below.

(Info from the wiki on each game)
Oblivion: Recommended (so, above minimum recs) video card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 128 MB or ATi Radeon X800 128 MB
Skyrim: Minimum video card spec: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM

The RAM and cpu fall into similar categories. Available disk space hasn't changed much. The point of comparing the specs is that a legitimate machine to play Oblivion perfectly well isn't even capable of playing Skyrim on minimim settings. Comparing gaming specs is perhaps the easiest way to compare average pc specs of the year if the games are similar enough.

Now, my ps3 and 360 can play both games. Had you purchased a pc capable of handling the first one in 2006, you would have been incapable of playing the one in 2011. This is important because computer developers and console developers handle specs differently. Console developers optimize the game code to fit into the console for obvious reasons. PC developers don't have to work as hard to optimize and so a game that still works on the console may not work on a comparable pc.

I'll take it a step further. What was the $400 "gaming pc" of 2006? Thank you internet.

3 examples of budget machines [http://www.anandtech.com/show/2041/2]
All three examples (two AMD configurations and one Intel) are around $650 and none of them are capable of playing minimum specs on large games today.

1GB RAM,
1.8 GHz processors (the intel is 2.66 but I don't think its a dual core)
256 MB video cards.
250GB HDD 7200 RPMs


Compare to the $1,500 dream machine of that year:

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468060
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468061
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468062&seqNum=7

Watch as this professional pc builder praises the ability to put together a $1,500 machine that barely meets the minimum specs of Skyrim.

2X 256k Video Cards (Nvidia 6600)
2GB of RAM
64GB HDD with 10,000 RPM
AMD 64 4200+ ATHLON X2 939P

Those are pretty much exactly the minimum requirements with the CPU being just a touch faster. This is the difference between a $1,500 machine and a $400 one. The $1,500 is still playing games 5 years out and poorly. The $400 machine would be out of its league now. The ps3 and 360? Still going strong.

Read intently as he explains to his reader why he's splurging on 2GB of RAM even though there's a question of the time about whether or not they'll ever need it. I have 16GB of RAM that I can expand to 32GB should I ever need to.

People who think a $400 gaming rig will last have not learned from the past and they'll be doomed to repeat it. I look forward to linking this thread 5 years from now.

The worry of driver incompatibilities or unsupported tech is antiquated. As far as pc today is concerned: install provided drivers, have DirectX. More than likely, you'll never experience this problem. Sometimes and rarely you might need to update the drivers for a specific game to run but that's still a relatively painless experience, most times it doesn't even require a reboot. Certainly less painful than how Sony handled firmware updates this generation. Min requirements do go up (at a snail's pace) for pc but that's because developers are not outright forced to adhere to the locked tech specs of consoles. Even though the min requirements do go, it's nothing so absurd as to what you're implying should be a concern, I mean here are Skyrim's minimum system requirements:
OS: Windows 7/Vista/XP (32 or 64 bit)
CPU: dual core 2GHz
RAM: 2GB
HDD: 6GB hard disk space
GFX: DX9c video card with 512MB RAM
OTHER: Internet Access for Steam activation

The newest technology on this list? Video card circa 2005.

First off, no. My monitor had a driver update that broke Skyrim until I rolled it back. The concern over drivers is still alive and well and you need to have special knowledge to overcome them.

As per my links above to start with, this is still a problem and none of this helps with cards that fall underneath the min-specs if you care at all about not burning out your card.

Saying that a card is from "2005" doesn't mean that the card wasn't expensive in 2006. I have fairly solidly shown you the price of such components from 2006 and it was pretty much impossible to build a machine with those specs for anything shy of $1,000 at least. That's giving a $500 margin of error to the professional I listed who made a living off of high-end computer building on a budget. 33% off? I wouldn't count on it but there you go.

Please bear in mind that with the introduction of new consoles, pc hardware should begin to see drastic improvements over the next 4 years and then start to taper off again like they've been doing the past two years.

That's pretty much consoles sole benefit by design: it's plug and play tech. So yea, it's going to be more ideal for a no-effort living room gaming set up. The benefit of size stems from being a mass produced lump of plastic and not from any conscious design beyond saving money on the materials. As far as multiple players: that requires extra controllers for the consoles. Most pc games will also recognize extra controller input for those that support local multi-player too. The noise of running the machine goes that varies from tech to tech and I honestly haven't bothered to listen to "comparably priced" pc but the hum is unlikely to be heard over any game being played at more than 25% volume.

I'm not sure how the cost of controllers factors into it. Multiplaying on PCs requires additional computers, monitors, keyboards, mouses and such. With controllers you often still have issues with split screens and the number of pc games that support it (well or otherwise) is MUCH more limited. I'd say they're getting better at it but this is still the easiest complaint when you're an urbane gamer with regular parties that involve the occasional multi-player video game for more than 2 players.

Going back to touch on size and living room gaming. Here's the size difference between the mini-tower in that first video's example, 360 and PS3:
Mini-tower: 16.5 x 6.8 x 13.9
360: 12.5 x 3.27 x 10.15
PS3: 12.8 x 3.8 x 10.8

The difference is three cubic inches, not that big of a difference. The video card from that first example also has hdmi output. Just slap a wireless keyboard and mouse on that rig and you can comfortably have that comp for a gaming pc on your living room tv just as easily as you would with a 360 provided you have a good lap tray for said keyboard and mouse. Or use big picture mode from steam with a wireless controller.

We know the size of the ps4 and Xbone already. We don't have to guess whether or not it will be smaller. Besides, as I've already explained, a comparable pc to the ps3 or 360 when they were first created was a giant-ass $1,500 machine and not a mini-tower. You're comparing mini-towers now with 5 and 6 year old machines which isn't fair. Tech gets smaller as tech advances.

Here are the points I would've brought up: the time and effort required to set all this up counting the install time of software, minimum skill and understanding needed to actually assemble and maintain a PC (this isn't IKEA furniture and even the best pcs require a monthly maintenance routine), DRM and other software conflicts(usually stemming from firewalls or anti-virus software), overall smaller online gaming community, manufacturer warranty issues and the typically horrible port jobs of console games that pcs tend to get.

I think the porting issue will finally be resolved with both consoles taking the x86 route. We're definitely trending towards PCs being the future with the console makers just creating the steam box equivalent for living rooms.

I imagine a day when Sony has to open up their doors to Steam by negotiating profit sharing and console exclusivity with Steam so that consoles don't have to start worrying about competing with pcs. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a business major who works in the software industry and specialized in product life cycles. But perhaps there will always be demand for consoles for what they are. I'm no economist after all, I don't have a crystal ball...

 

[The Inquisitive Mug]

To everyone telling Yahtzee he's over-thinking this, or being paranoid: "This story is entirely fictional and was written by a mentally unbalanced man who doesn't believe that anything like this actually happened." -THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE COLUMN

 

[Lovesfool]

Great text.

You know what? I think it pretty damn could happen exactly like that. It wouldn't surprise me (or anyone, I think)if the fiction Yahtzee cooked up this week was actually a skewed version of the actual events.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Reynaert]

That's a good read. When I read the title I was thinking Mr. Micro and Mr. Soft, it turned out a bit different. I like how the coin toss is described, you can see it happening in front of your mental eye.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, I finished editing the post above. I accidentally hit post instead of preview and this site has deemed fit to prevent deletion of posts (some sites have a timer that allows deletion within about 5 minutes or less after posting). In it, I show the relative price of a budget gaming pc ($650) and show that it isn't even capable of still playing modern games on min-specs. I also show a budget $1,500 powerhorse machine to show that it can just barely still play games on minimum requirements.

If you don't know the past and learn from it, you're doomed to repeat it. In this case, the promise that $400 gaming pcs will last the next 5 years that the ps4 and Xbone will is a pretty blatant lie. If nothing else, the existence of the new consoles will cause pc development to spike again over the next few years to meet additional demands before it slows down again at the end of the next console gen like it did with this one. Gaming directly motivates pc hardware development as gaming is what demands the most processing (video editing does as well, but to a lesser degree and modern tech is getting capable at doing it to the point that new hardware won't make so big a difference).

 

[Orekoya]

Okay tech man. Quick: Name a major video card chip maker that isn't nvidia or radeon.
Name a major cpu chip maker that isn't intel or amd.

What does that have to do with anything? Video Games routinely fail to account for certain types of video cards. If you've regularly pc gamed you'd have run into it from time to time. Whether it's older cards or newer cards, the end result is still the same. Here are some examples of it happening more recently:

1. A video dedicated to circumventing unsupported video card errors when Splinter Cell failed to support more current cards. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kAhfGKpqU8]
2. Diablo III [http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5151265737]
3. Medal of Honor: Airborne [http://steamcommunity.com/app/24840/discussions/0/810924765078163034/] (recently surfacing issue on an older game just to toss that around, not much you can do about that if you want a new gaming rig)

You can also get failed to render errors that more commonly happen when your card is too old. Fortunately, companies are better at updating drivers for their cards but five year old cards don't get a lot in that way. Remember, we're talking about two machines that are intended to last 5 years or more.

It has plenty to do with it because technology has become more streamlined and the sheer variety of tech parts that need to be accounted aren't what they used to be. Therefore these problems pop up less. In the 90s there was thirty companies running around with their own produced chips that had to be accounted for. From then to today they've merged, been bought up or bankrupted to the point that there's pretty much just the major two in each category left. If you're asking for my personal experience, I've been building my own pcs and playing pc games since 1998. I have never experienced this problem. Granted I've not played all games but the first and second link brings the excellent counterpoint.

Let's not pretend for a second that because the tech will be the same that bugs don't exist for consoles. They do. And when they exist, console gamers can do nothing to solve the problem: you are at the whim of the developer. Ubisoft took about four months to patch game-breaking bugs from ZombiU [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/398210/zombiu-patch-fixes-game-breaking-glitch/]. But on PC we have the power to solve our grievances, whatever they are. The video you linked is him posting how he fixed that problem. The forum post for Diablo III shows how to edit the code for a quick fix, a problem that was addressed within a day from when it was brought to attention.

Spoiler: 2006 vs 2011

Let's look at the difference 5 years make (console generation).
(Info from the wiki on each game)
Oblivion: Recommended (so, above minimum recs) video card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 128 MB or ATi Radeon X800 128 MB
Skyrim: Minimum video card spec: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM

The RAM and cpu fall into similar categories. Available disk space hasn't changed much. The point of comparing the specs is that a legitimate machine to play Oblivion perfectly well isn't even capable of playing Skyrim on minimim settings. Comparing gaming specs is perhaps the easiest way to compare average pc specs of the year if the games are similar enough.

Now, my ps3 and 360 can play both games. Had you purchased a pc capable of handling the first one in 2006, you would have been incapable of playing the one in 2011. This is important because computer developers and console developers handle specs differently. Console developers optimize the game code to fit into the console for obvious reasons. PC developers don't have to work as hard to optimize and so a game that still works on the console may not work on a comparable pc.

I'll take it a step further. What was the $400 "gaming pc" of 2006? Thank you internet.

3 examples of budget machines [http://www.anandtech.com/show/2041/2]
All three examples (two AMD configurations and one Intel) are around $650 and none of them are capable of playing minimum specs on large games today.

1GB RAM,
1.8 GHz processors (the intel is 2.66 but I don't think its a dual core)
256 MB video cards.
250GB HDD 7200 RPMs

Compare to the $1,500 dream machine of that year:

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468060
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468061
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468062&seqNum=7

Watch as this professional pc builder praises the ability to put together a $1,500 machine that barely meets the minimum specs of Skyrim.

2X 256k Video Cards (Nvidia 6600)
2GB of RAM
64GB HDD with 10,000 RPM
AMD 64 4200+ ATHLON X2 939P

Those are pretty much exactly the minimum requirements with the CPU being just a touch faster. This is the difference between a $1,500 machine and a $400 one. The $1,500 is still playing games 5 years out and poorly. The $400 machine would be out of its league now. The ps3 and 360? Still going strong.

Read intently as he explains to his reader why he's splurging on 2GB of RAM even though there's a question of the time about whether or not they'll ever need it. I have 16GB of RAM that I can expand to 32GB should I ever need to.

People who think a $400 gaming rig will last have not learned from the past and they'll be doomed to repeat it. I look forward to linking this thread 5 years from now.

You aren't wrong about the pc tech but I disagree about consoles going [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaeU3DvW5-o] strong [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74lm5pvRzOA]. Sorry I don't count horrible fps [http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27148974] and controller [http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3742218/Re_Controller_lag_Xbox_360]/input lag [http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/Input-Lag-when-playing-on-HDTV/td-p/38000345] as going strong.

The worry of driver incompatibilities or unsupported tech is antiquated. As far as pc today is concerned: install provided drivers, have DirectX. More than likely, you'll never experience this problem. Sometimes and rarely you might need to update the drivers for a specific game to run but that's still a relatively painless experience, most times it doesn't even require a reboot. Certainly less painful than how Sony handled firmware updates this generation. Min requirements do go up (at a snail's pace) for pc but that's because developers are not outright forced to adhere to the locked tech specs of consoles. Even though the min requirements do go, it's nothing so absurd as to what you're implying should be a concern, I mean here are Skyrim's minimum system requirements:
OS: Windows 7/Vista/XP (32 or 64 bit)
CPU: dual core 2GHz
RAM: 2GB
HDD: 6GB hard disk space
GFX: DX9c video card with 512MB RAM
OTHER: Internet Access for Steam activation

The newest technology on this list? Video card circa 2005.

First off, no. My monitor had a driver update that broke Skyrim until I rolled it back. The concern over drivers is still alive and well and you need to have special knowledge to overcome them.

As per my links above to start with, this is still a problem and none of this helps with cards that fall underneath the min-specs if you care at all about not burning out your card.

Saying that a card is from "2005" doesn't mean that the card wasn't expensive in 2006. I have fairly solidly shown you the price of such components from 2006 and it was pretty much impossible to build a machine with those specs for anything shy of $1,000 at least. That's giving a $500 margin of error to the professional I listed who made a living off of high-end computer building on a budget. 33% off? I wouldn't count on it but there you go.

Please bear in mind that with the introduction of new consoles, pc hardware should begin to see drastic improvements over the next 4 years and then start to taper off again like they've been doing the past two years.

Nope. No. Flat out, underscore no. I do not believe you. Show me that this concern over drivers is still rampant and alive because I have not talked to anyone about pc gaming in at least the past five years who spoke any concerns of "Oh I hope game X will be compatiable with tech Y". I have not seen forum posts on a forum where someone asked if upcoming game X will be compatiable with tech Y. People assume it will work first so the worry is dead. Whether the problem itself exists, circumventable.

That's pretty much consoles sole benefit by design: it's plug and play tech. So yea, it's going to be more ideal for a no-effort living room gaming set up. The benefit of size stems from being a mass produced lump of plastic and not from any conscious design beyond saving money on the materials. As far as multiple players: that requires extra controllers for the consoles. Most pc games will also recognize extra controller input for those that support local multi-player too. The noise of running the machine goes that varies from tech to tech and I honestly haven't bothered to listen to "comparably priced" pc but the hum is unlikely to be heard over any game being played at more than 25% volume.

I'm not sure how the cost of controllers factors into it. Multiplaying on PCs requires additional computers, monitors, keyboards, mouses and such. With controllers you often still have issues with split screens and the number of pc games that support it (well or otherwise) is MUCH more limited. I'd say they're getting better at it but this is still the easiest complaint when you're an urbane gamer with regular parties that involve the occasional multi-player video game for more than 2 players.

Going back to touch on size and living room gaming. Here's the size difference between the mini-tower in that first video's example, 360 and PS3:
Mini-tower: 16.5 x 6.8 x 13.9
360: 12.5 x 3.27 x 10.15
PS3: 12.8 x 3.8 x 10.8

The difference is three cubic inches, not that big of a difference. The video card from that first example also has hdmi output. Just slap a wireless keyboard and mouse on that rig and you can comfortably have that comp for a gaming pc on your living room tv just as easily as you would with a 360 provided you have a good lap tray for said keyboard and mouse. Or use big picture mode from steam with a wireless controller.

We know the size of the ps4 and Xbone already. We don't have to guess whether or not it will be smaller. Besides, as I've already explained, a comparable pc to the ps3 or 360 when they were first created was a giant-ass $1,500 machine and not a mini-tower. You're comparing mini-towers now with 5 and 6 year old machines which isn't fair. Tech gets smaller as tech advances.

It's not fair? Okay, whatever. I would argue this and the split screen stuff but frankly this post has already turned into a gigantic unreadable chain and I'm tired of proofreading it in preview. I can see why your post was lingering in edit for hours.

Here are the points I would've brought up: the time and effort required to set all this up counting the install time of software, minimum skill and understanding needed to actually assemble and maintain a PC (this isn't IKEA furniture and even the best pcs require a monthly maintenance routine), DRM and other software conflicts(usually stemming from firewalls or anti-virus software), overall smaller online gaming community, manufacturer warranty issues and the typically horrible port jobs of console games that pcs tend to get.

I think the porting issue will finally be resolved with both consoles taking the x86 route. We're definitely trending towards PCs being the future with the console makers just creating the steam box equivalent for living rooms.

I imagine a day when Sony has to open up their doors to Steam by negotiating profit sharing and console exclusivity with Steam so that consoles don't have to start worrying about competing with pcs. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a business major who works in the software industry and specialized in product life cycles. But perhaps there will always be demand for consoles for what they are. I'm no economist after all, I don't have a crystal ball...

I imagine a day when mind controllers like MyndPlay take off and becomes the new controller input for gaming so companies will drop this stupid motion control crap. I imagine a day when it will combine with virtual reality tech like Oculus Rift to make gaming even more immersive. I imagine a day where a young girl playing an mmo on such tech will be suddenly mind-stuck within her avatar as a whiny male healer while the body goes into a coma and only through realizing her hidden desires for lesbianism will she fight to return to her body.

Anyways, my point is: that day is not today. Right now today sucks. I also have business degree(though hardly making use of it being a code monkey and whatnot) and frankly I don't see how 'console exclusivity' would be a benefit for Steam if it was going to go to that particular market, it is a retailer afterall just like gamestop.

 

[MeisterKleister]

I believe the point of this parable is that Mr. S isn't really a hero and he might as well have conspired together with Mr. M.
If Mr. S had gone ahead and announced their console first, the roles would probably have been reversed.

 

[knox140]

Well if I pay £40 for a good game, say, Bioshock Infinite, I feel that the price I payed was well worth it for the experience I got. If my console lasts me 8 years, for example, that's a lot of games, and if the majority of those were worth playing, the price of the PS4 will have more than payed itself off in the enjoyment I got from the games. In the end, I buy a gaming platform to play games. The experience I get from playing them on PC is marginally better, but not to an extent that it dramatically affects my enjoyment at all, since consoles still perform highly and I'm having a good time either way. Also, next gen games cost the same on consoles as PC, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your last point.

That's not entirely accurate. Yeah, a lot of games cost the same initially on PC but prices go down much faster and there are amazing sales of recent games every day. You will eventually save a lot of money on PC. Bioshock Infinite is actually a wonderful example: For around 50$ you could purchase the game for PC on GMG and you got 3 other titles for free (good ones too) and 15$ dollar credit on your next purchase. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen on consoles.
But you're right with the initial price: 400$ doesn't cut it for a next gen PC. I paid around 700 Euros for my new rig and that's without monitor, keyboard and mouse and some other small stuff. But still: In the long run, it's cheaper if you're smart about your game purchases.

Well, with my copy of Bioshock Infinite I also got the original Bioshock free, which costs about $15 separately. And for someone like me, who preorders most of my games, getting them on console or PC doesn't matter, they cost the same. Plus you can borrow discs from friends, since most PC gaming happens on Steam and GOG now, that's not an option for PC gamers.

I like your avatar, by the way

 

[knox140]

Well seeing as the games are being designed with the console architecture in mind, that kinda falls short.

For the first time since... ever, the upcoming consoles' architecture is almost exactly the same as the standard PC architecture, so your comment falls even shorter.

Yeah, read the comment I was replying to first. He said that $400 consoles wouldn't be able to play next gen games, which is stupid.

 

[knox140]

True, but $400 PCs won't nearly cut it for next gen games.

Neither will the consoles.

Well seeing as the games are being designed with the console architecture in mind, that kinda falls short.

I'm curious how you think 400$ consoles have a magical ability to run like 1200$ PCs.

A console that has exactly the same raw power as a PC will run games better than that PC. Because of that, a console doesn't need as expensive hardware to run games at the same level. It's something to do with how much of the RAM the CPU and the GPU can access at any one time- on a console it's vastly higher than on PC. If you want to know why, read this, I cba to sum it up.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php

 

[Lightknight]

It has plenty to do with it because technology has become more streamlined and the sheer variety of tech parts that need to be accounted aren't what they used to be. Therefore these problems pop up less. In the 90s there was thirty companies running around with their own produced chips that had to be accounted for. From then to today they've merged, been bought up or bankrupted to the point that there's pretty much just the major two in each category left. If you're asking for my personal experience, I've been building my own pcs and playing pc games since 1998. I have never experienced this problem. Granted I've not played all games but the first and second link brings the excellent counterpoint.

Let's not pretend for a second that because the tech will be the same that bugs don't exist for consoles. They do. And when they exist, console gamers can do nothing to solve the problem: you are at the whim of the developer. Ubisoft took about four months to patch game-breaking bugs from ZombiU [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/398210/zombiu-patch-fixes-game-breaking-glitch/]. But on PC we have the power to solve our grievances, whatever they are. The video you linked is him posting how he fixed that problem. The forum post for Diablo III shows how to edit the code for a quick fix, a problem that was addressed within a day from when it was brought to attention.

Nvidia and AMD being the only game in town only alleviates the problem, they do not make it go away. The problem mostly occurs with games that are too old to recognize new cards and games that are too new to be run on old video cards. The latter statement alone validates my comment that you have to have compatible video cards which means you have to know the difference. Additionally, there are occasional issues with specific video cards even with only two makers. If the game is large enough, a new driver will be released. The individual then has to know that it exists and how to install it. So I'm still unsure what two card makers have to do with it other than things are better on this side of the 2000's.

Spoiler: 2006 vs 2011

Let's look at the difference 5 years make (console generation).
(Info from the wiki on each game)
Oblivion: Recommended (so, above minimum recs) video card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 128 MB or ATi Radeon X800 128 MB
Skyrim: Minimum video card spec: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM

The RAM and cpu fall into similar categories. Available disk space hasn't changed much. The point of comparing the specs is that a legitimate machine to play Oblivion perfectly well isn't even capable of playing Skyrim on minimim settings. Comparing gaming specs is perhaps the easiest way to compare average pc specs of the year if the games are similar enough.

Now, my ps3 and 360 can play both games. Had you purchased a pc capable of handling the first one in 2006, you would have been incapable of playing the one in 2011. This is important because computer developers and console developers handle specs differently. Console developers optimize the game code to fit into the console for obvious reasons. PC developers don't have to work as hard to optimize and so a game that still works on the console may not work on a comparable pc.

I'll take it a step further. What was the $400 "gaming pc" of 2006? Thank you internet.

3 examples of budget machines [http://www.anandtech.com/show/2041/2]
All three examples (two AMD configurations and one Intel) are around $650 and none of them are capable of playing minimum specs on large games today.

1GB RAM,
1.8 GHz processors (the intel is 2.66 but I don't think its a dual core)
256 MB video cards.
250GB HDD 7200 RPMs

Compare to the $1,500 dream machine of that year:

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468060
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468061
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=468062&seqNum=7

Watch as this professional pc builder praises the ability to put together a $1,500 machine that barely meets the minimum specs of Skyrim.

2X 256k Video Cards (Nvidia 6600)
2GB of RAM
64GB HDD with 10,000 RPM
AMD 64 4200+ ATHLON X2 939P

Those are pretty much exactly the minimum requirements with the CPU being just a touch faster. This is the difference between a $1,500 machine and a $400 one. The $1,500 is still playing games 5 years out and poorly. The $400 machine would be out of its league now. The ps3 and 360? Still going strong.

Read intently as he explains to his reader why he's splurging on 2GB of RAM even though there's a question of the time about whether or not they'll ever need it. I have 16GB of RAM that I can expand to 32GB should I ever need to.

People who think a $400 gaming rig will last have not learned from the past and they'll be doomed to repeat it. I look forward to linking this thread 5 years from now.

You aren't wrong about the pc tech but I disagree about consoles going [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaeU3DvW5-o] strong [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74lm5pvRzOA]. Sorry I don't count horrible fps [http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27148974] and controller [http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3742218/Re_Controller_lag_Xbox_360]/input lag [http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/Input-Lag-when-playing-on-HDTV/td-p/38000345] as going strong.

Skyrim didn't do that crap on the ps3 because of the processing "power" being weak. It did it because Sony, in its infinite wisdom, purposefully hindered developers' ability to fully utilize the hardware by forcing them to break up assets into asset categories. The problem with that, aside from Sony shooting themselves in the foot by making themselves hard to code for, is that if any one asset category gets too bloated it will cause the ps3 to crash.

Enter Skyrim. A game made by a company who has a tradition of bloated assets. Now, I've worked as a QA engineer in software development and I also got Skyrim from day one on the ps3. I proceeded to test and noticed issues like the dungeons failing to reset and bloom effects and dinged the problem on the nose with a month of testing (and even explained what actions users needed to avoid). The proceeding patches then all worked to take care of those problems.

This is why it worked fine on the 360 but not the ps3 when they were relatively the same and the ps3 even technically had a slight edge in power. Coincidentally, this is the game that made me go ahead and build my curent power pc that is specced well above the norm. The 360 framework drop was bad but we also saw fps issues on weaker pcs during particularly bad battles before the same patches came out for the pc version to take care of some bloating.

My intention of using the game was because you mentioned it. The specs are what was important during that discussion. At least the developers work at getting the problems fixed in the consoles but the pc only gets general fixes up to the minimum specs. Also, Skyrim is the most blatant example of problems with bloating doing this but not only has the problem been fixed, but other games follow the same specs and don't have the same problem.

At the end of the day, you still have $650 budget machines from 2006 that haven't been able to play new AAA games for years now and the ps3 just got the Last of Us. For a pc that stands the test of time that consoles to you really will need a $1,500 machine. Probably closer to $1,200 or so as tech is more affordable at the moment.

Nope. No. Flat out, underscore no. I do not believe you. Show me that this concern over drivers is still rampant and alive because I have not talked to anyone about pc gaming in at least the past five years who spoke any concerns of "Oh I hope game X will be compatiable with tech Y". I have not seen forum posts on a forum where someone asked if upcoming game X will be compatiable with tech Y. People assume it will work first so the worry is dead. Whether the problem itself exists, circumventable.

People having video cards that are too weak is a very common problem, obviously. This is why the "is my pc capable of playing... X" is an ever existing thread starter if there's ever been one. As for driver issues, it happened in Skyrim too:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/114965-13-graphics-problem-skyrim

That is actualy the monitor issue I had where the driver update ruined it. This does happen. It isn't rampant but for the handful of games it happens on the pc there's usually 0 games on the consoles.

It's not fair? Okay, whatever. I would argue this and the split screen stuff but frankly this post has already turned into a gigantic unreadable chain and I'm tired of proofreading it in preview. I can see why your post was lingering in edit for hours.

It's not fair because you don't compare tech that was made six years ago to tech that is out right now. You compare it to the tech at the time. People aren't asking for what $400 will get them in five years. They're trying to see what they get now for their money. As is, the ps4 and Xbone are far smaller than current pcs and the 360 and ps3 were pretty small for their time as well.

In any event, the math works out to the following as far as my calculator is concerned:
16.5 * 6.8 * 13.9 = 1559.58
12.5 * 3.27 * 10.15 = 414.88
12.8 * 3.8 * 10.8 = 525.31

I'm not 100% where you got 3 cubic inches from. I really haven't had to use volume geometry in years but something that is 2in * 2in * 2in is 8 in^3. So given that math, we'd be looking at a difference of triple or double the values of the 360/ps3. More than 1,000 in^3 than either console. I'm not sure where you got your mini-tower volume from, but I've seen even larger ones that claim "mini" tower to their name. As for the length of my post, I did my homework. If I'm going to disagree with someone, I need to do it right. There is a clear historical presidence for people saying everything you're saying right now and being completely wrong each time. It's that line of thinking that is why the maker of the $1,500 machine had to explain why 2GB of RAM was worth getting.

Forgive me if that sounded snarky. The math is so simple and you seemed so sure that the difference was just 3 in^3 that I have a sinking suspicion that I'm making a dumb mistake myself. On an issue like this there's no way I couldn't come across that way so I apologize if that bristled you. I really am checking the math and wondering if I missed something.

Anyways, my point is: that day is not today. Right now today sucks. I also have business degree(though hardly making use of it being a code monkey and whatnot) and frankly I don't see how 'console exclusivity' would be a benefit for Steam if it was going to go to that particular market, it is a retailer afterall just like gamestop.

Today hardly sucks. Games are getting better and better while tech and all areas of science are only increasing in speed. We live in a veritable wonderland of entertainment in which even complaining about it is its own form of entertainment

 

[Orekoya]

Nope. No. Flat out, underscore no. I do not believe you. Show me that this concern over drivers is still rampant and alive because I have not talked to anyone about pc gaming in at least the past five years who spoke any concerns of "Oh I hope game X will be compatiable with tech Y". I have not seen forum posts on a forum where someone asked if upcoming game X will be compatiable with tech Y. People assume it will work first so the worry is dead. Whether the problem itself exists, circumventable.

People having video cards that are too weak is a very common problem, obviously. This is why the "is my pc capable of playing... X" is an ever existing thread starter if there's ever been one. As for driver issues, it happened in Skyrim too:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/114965-13-graphics-problem-skyrim

That is actualy the monitor issue I had where the driver update ruined it. This does happen. It isn't rampant but for the handful of games it happens on the pc there's usually 0 games on the consoles.

I feel like you didn't read this paragraph or link right. That's not "is my pc capable of playing... X", they aren't worrying that their tech won't work. That's "I'm experiencing problem Y while playing X". This poster seemed to assume it would work first until proven otherwise - where it was proven otherwise.

Let's stop this talking past one another:
A. One of your points about the cons of pc gaming was that you will have to worry whether or not your tech will run any future game.
B. I said people do not do this worrying, they assume it will work until proven otherwise.
C. You listed examples of when it has been proven otherwise as if this was evidence that people are constantly worrying.
D. I said "Nope. No. Flat out, underscore no. I do not believe you." IE I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying people do not worry preemptively about whether or not their tech will work and these examples of when it didn't aren't enough to convince me otherwise.

In any event, the math works out to the following as far as my calculator is concerned:
16.5 * 6.8 * 13.9 = 1559.58
12.5 * 3.27 * 10.15 = 414.88
12.8 * 3.8 * 10.8 = 525.31

I'm not 100% where you got 3 cubic inches from. I really haven't had to use volume geometry in years but something that is 2in * 2in * 2in is 8 in^3. So given that math, we'd be looking at a difference of triple or double the values of the 360/ps3. More than 1,000 in^3 than either console. I'm not sure where you got your mini-tower volume from, but I've seen even larger ones that claim "mini" tower to their name. As for the length of my post, I did my homework. If I'm going to disagree with someone, I need to do it right. There is a clear historical presidence for people saying everything you're saying right now and being completely wrong each time. It's that line of thinking that is why the maker of the $1,500 machine had to explain why 2GB of RAM was worth getting.

Forgive me if that sounded snarky. The math is so simple and you seemed so sure that the difference was just 3 in^3 that I have a sinking suspicion that I'm making a dumb mistake myself. On an issue like this there's no way I couldn't come across that way so I apologize if that bristled you. I really am checking the math and wondering if I missed something.

Go for snarky, it's way more fun to read. Unfortunately I'm not up for a long in-depth debates like earlier but I'm going to say this: I still disagree because I don't believe you. Hardly worth a post when I don't have the motivation to flesh this out for a paragraph by paragraph response and turning it into yet another wall of text, but I felt that at least this should probably be addressed so you would know why I said that. When I was doing my comparison I wasn't actually calculating the volume difference, I was going for the difference on each side to show how it wouldn't need much shelf space over a console.

PC sides - 360 sides
4 x 3.53 x 3.75
PC sides - PS3 sides
3.7 x 3 x 3.1

My brain just said a whole bunch of threes, rounded down and attached cubic erroneously in an attempt to preserve my sanity by keeping my posts as short and concise as possible because by then that post was already getting way more bloated than I typically like my posts to be. I tend to have the attitude that if you can't say what you want in less than 500 words then it's not worth writing about: nobody comes to forums to read walls of text. Oh, also I got those pc tower dimensions from the first video I linked which I could've sworn I at least included the source in the original post.

Anyways, my point is: that day is not today. Right now today sucks.

Today hardly sucks.

That was referencing a movie as well as the previous paragraph you cut out that was referencing the plot of an anime. Lighten up.

 

[Airon]

Good read. Thanks.

Mogworld is a great read I might add.

 

[Farther than stars]

Conspiracy theory, much?

Well, they wouldn't be the first organisations to use artificial competition to sell their products.

I would have switched the two letters in the title but otherwise great read.

And that's also why I would never ever want you on a PR team, unless you're working for the competition of course.

I get it!!

Mr. S is Shigeru Miyamoto and Mr. M is Peter Molyneux!


... wait, suddenly I don't get it.

Yeah, Nintendo and 22 Cans aren't exactly in the console business.