The Tale of M and S
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
You really think that? If they could get away with it, they probably would, but a lawsuit like that would be catastrophic for either company. Not the lawsuit itself, but can you imagine the reaction of the gamer community? They'd be out of business faster than you could say "oops".Nimzabaat said:
They mostly say that so that they won't get bitched at by people who bought a cheap PC with no dedicated GPU from Wal-Mart or wherever and are now irate that it won't run the latest AAA titles. My PC cost me $650 (about £430 according to google) when I built it two years ago, and it runs everything I've thrown at it without issue. In fact, when I tried to turn up the settings on The Witcher 2 enough to slow the framerate (I'd heard that a slow framerate can be exploited to beat Mighty Numa's arm wrestling challenge on your first go), I couldn't get it to slow down, even with the UberSampling feature that's specifically labelled "only for absolutely top-end systems"[footnote]Granted, that may have something to do with the fact that I'm using a 1280x1024 monitor instead of a HDTV, but still...[/footnote]. Again, this is a system that was mid-range TWO ENTIRE YEARS AGO, and it still keeps pace with everything I've tried.knox140 said:
Ah, that Orwellian / V for Vendetta conspiracy stuff - I love the British writers with their strong "what if" mentality and, simultaneously, ability for carrying out lightly the heavy topics.
Enjoyed reading the piece of fiction, and almost instantaneous deduction of main characters and plot denouement haven't spoiled it at all.
Enjoyed reading the piece of fiction, and almost instantaneous deduction of main characters and plot denouement haven't spoiled it at all.
Well, I'm sure I'd fit in with a PR team at a certain special interests store/bar downtown.Farther than stars said:
[sub][sub]I was going to add an image for comic effect but after searching for s&m without a filter on, I don't really want to now... too distracted.[/sub][/sub]
OK, somehow saying that is worse than adding pornographic images to your post, something which also cannot be discouraged enough. I mean, there's genial banter and then there's just being creepy.-Dragmire- said:
P.S. Speaking of conspiracies, the captcha is making me type: 'I like humans'.
Yeah, we British really are the first example of conspiracy that springs to mind. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any other anglophone country which has been secretly spying on its citizens for the past few years in an Orwellian fashion... (Oh, but sarcasm; that is something at which we are truly unbeaten.)matrixdll said:
Come on, lighten up. Taking things too seriously deflates the lighthearted fun I had intended with my posts.Farther than stars said:
Though I don't care for using emoticons in my text so perhaps people mistake the intent of my words more often than I think.
What alternate dimension are you from, where Nintendo isn't in the console business. Keep your snark in check pal. I was joking in the first place.Farther than stars said:
As entertaining as this story is I don't think this is what happened. I think Microsoft just assumed that Sony would put out a system that had the most anti-consumer features money could possibly buy (this is Sony after all, they actually sold CDs with rootkits on them that hacked your computer) and after the backlash against Microsoft, Sony just decided to keep the current model (well, not theirs. Microsoft's current model).
Still rather uninspiring. I wonder if this is the last console generation? My current PC is already 4x as powerful than these new consoles.
Still rather uninspiring. I wonder if this is the last console generation? My current PC is already 4x as powerful than these new consoles.
Clearly yahtzee was saying this was microsoft's clever plan to sell more copies of windows 8. Duh.
No reason to turn this into a pc elitist vs. console fanboy thread. You will all get screwed in turn, with the instrument of your choice.
No reason to turn this into a pc elitist vs. console fanboy thread. You will all get screwed in turn, with the instrument of your choice.
Oh, of course Nintendo used to be in the console business, but let's face it, those days are gone. They switched over to the gimmicky-fringe-tech business a long time ago.Mumorpuger said:
Your statement that people don't worry about this until proven wrong is entirely the point I'm arguing with. I'm not talking past you, I'm saying that line of thinking is entirely bogus and has been consistently wrong at every step of the computer's existence. Remember when people "we'll never need more than 256MB of RAM, this things a BEAST" or when they laughed at needing a full GB of storage? You're doing that now and practically claiming "future proof". You can choose not to believe me all you want but don't act like I'm talking past you when I'm showing historically why you should believe me. That's not talking past, that's just failing to convince.Orekoya said:
What I'm saying is this. People in the past generation compared the computer specs with the consoles and lauded $650 machines that they said would compete pound for pound with the ps3/360 as a gaming machine. I then showed those machine's actual performance over the next 5 years and they fell grossly beneath the standards within just a couple years despite being over specced for high-end games at the time and appearing to be more powerful on paper than the consoles. Even the $1,500 machine that was lauded as a cheap cheetah machine is only capable of playing the minimum specs of a similar game to the title it could play on the highest settings earlier on. These $400 machines everyone is linking to now are cute. They really are and are a fine machine for the next couple of years, probably. Right now they're wondeful and cheap machines. But if you're looking for a one-stop machine that WILL be able to play the games made for it then a $400 ps4 (or a $500 Xbone if that's your thing) is the way to go. Because these $400 "gaming pcs" will NOT be able to play new games 5 years from now. The pc specs for games will greatly exceed the console specs (pc specs right now are currently several times our console specs, 4 times the RAM on the minimum requirement).
You've got to ask yourself why the pc specs are that many times more demanding than the consoles on even games that weren't as poorly developed for the consoles as Skyrim was. The answer is the same reason why these $400 machines are laughable.
Even with the x86 architecture making it similar to pcs, you're still looking at standardized hardware, optimized OSs and an infrastructure between hardware that has far more efficiencies than pcs can ever obtain for a reasonable cost because pcs are all cobbled together from any number of components. With standardized hardware, developers can optimize and push the console to its limits in ways they can't push the typical pc. It won't be as drastic as it was this past generation but it's still going to be specific. A real gaming pc (around $900+) will likely be able to play all these games for years to come, perhaps for the whole console generation. But no one really knows what kind of jump the consoles will cause in the pc hardware market that will make games made for the pc more demanding. Also, when the average pc is 4GB or less (use sites like Amazon and look for the most common specc'd gaming pcs to look for averages), we are looking at the ps4/Xbone generally outperforming the average machine for at least two years with ports to the pc allowing significant downscaling in the meantime to maintain the pc gamer market. Then, as the average pc catches up and then exceeds the consoles we'll see the same kind of pc haven we're seeing now. We'll seriously be subject to a slingshot effect in pc hardware thanks to these new consoles. 6 times the previous systems processing power? Fantastic for consoles and gaming in general but bad for my wallet. I'd like to say that I made my pc future proof for the coming generation but I have a sneaking suspicion that I'll need a new motherboard to allow me to get a better video card setup despite my cpu and RAM being cutting edge. That's if I still want to keep all the highest settings at 60 FPS even though I'm not a graphiophile and didn't actually notice a difference in graphics between games on the console vs games on the pc unless you show me pictures of the comparison side by side. Sure, the pc is certainly better but it didn't make a big enough difference for me when games are as beautiful as they are now anyways.
Regardless, I do prefer my pc. Please don't see this thread as me knocking my glorious master gaming race machine. I am only knocking these ridiculous $400 pcs as completely misleading. I strongly recommend investing in a $1,000+ machine or going through the trouble of switching out the $400 machine ever 2.5 years to keep up with the Joneses. At $800 over 5 years, that's not as bad as a super expensive pc and the games will be prettier on it at the end of the generation than they are on consoles.
Sorry, but I don't know you enough to know if you'd appreciate it. Also, there's no lack of people on any message board that would just read it as me being an ass. While I'm quite full of snark in my regular life while talking with friends, anonymity and the confusion that text based confusion causes by a lack of tonal nuances prevents my excursions into what can much more easily be read as rudeness or me calling a person dumb who is quite clearly not. At least, your ability to put together a coherent line of thought indicates to me that you're not.
I'd rather come across as cold and calculating rather than as an ass. I'm entirely sincere in my discussions albeit long winded.
No, I knew what mistake you made. The premise of the 3.7 x 3 x 3.1 is all it's more then is just extremely off. The actual difference between the ps3 and the computer you listed is over 1,000in3 whereas the number you'd come at if you multiplied those numbers would be an erroneous 34.4 in3. Doing the math that way is so off because: 4 in * 5 in * 4 in = 80 in3. But 2 in * 2 in * 2 in = 8 in3 and 2 in * 3 in * 2 in = 12 in3. Adding the two together is just 20 in3 compared to the actual 80 in3. So you can't just break them off that way. If you add 3 inches to something you're multiplying those 3 inches against all other dimensions and not just the other additions you're making to the other dimensions. That'd be like saying that making 3 X 10 X 10 into 6 X 10 X 10 is only 3in more when it's 300 in3 more.
Regardless, this is a significant space difference. It'd take three consoles to equal the amount of cubic inches the tower you mentioned actually is. Hell, three fat ps3's added together would only be 16.35 in3. You're also using the very first PS3 dimensions. If you look at the current super slim models we're talking 11.4 in * 2.36 in * 9.05 in (243.48 in3) (The original slim was 11.4 in * 2.55 in * 11.4 in, just in case you find those numbers and think I missed something). The "mini-tower" dimensions you listed could swallow 6.41 super slim ps3's cubic inches (1559.58/243.48).
What's more, if you have a truly powerful pc you can't use a mini-tower if you want it to be properly ventilated. I have a server case for my pc so you're talking about a hell of a lot more than 1,000 in3 in size difference and there are plenty of "mini-towers" that are larger than the one you mentioned.
Add that to the other disadvantages and additional costs (the ps3 super slim requires 190W of power whereas a gaming pc would be several multiples of that) and the console is a very appealing and cheap option. Doing better than that would require significant knowledge and still require real money.
Don't forget, getting a $400 pc means you know exactly how and where to buy them in addition to how to put them all together. I remember the first pc I built. Frustrating as Hell but I was one of the lucky few whose machine started up the first time I tried it.
Lighten up?! But this is the internet. There's no time to lighten up. You need to weigh yourself down some. Reflect on dead puppies and how the best part of waking up is knowing you haven't died, not coffee.
Yea you are definitely talking past me and arguing with the point you want to argue with. That's why you compare the two fields and fault pc gaming for their development continuing sloping up thus needing better tech every few years as if the reason was because the consoles are inherently better for their slower turn around time for upgrading and not that developers are stuck to work with what they have. It's why you didn't bother clicking half my links where you were would've seen I was referencing games other than Skyrim that were experiencing the same horrible fps and controller/input lag issues I mentioned. Hell, you want to moan about incompatible hardware issues yet I provide a link where the discussion of input lag mentions how the 360 is incompatible with certain brands/models of tvs unless said tvs are turned into a specific mode if that kind of tv with such technology had that mode available (which, correct if I'm wrong but you were bitching that pc driver fixes requiring special knowledge on how to overcome their problem) and you just brush that off.Lightknight said:
By the by, this cutoff is when I stopped reading your latest wall of text. Figured it was fair game if you weren't reading mine because it was getting in the way of you flaunting your homework. Sorry if anything else was relevant. Just keep in mind what I said about practically.
Two things:Orekoya said:
1. You are mistaken. I did not say that the consoles are somehow inherently better than pcs at any time. What I did say is that I prefer my pc, which is decidedly the opposite. I said they're better than pcs that have comparable specs because consoles have efficiencies that those do not. This is an inherently true statement that coincides with standardized hardware and optimized infrastructure that can be achieved between entirely known and tested components. In other words, developers will be able to safely do a LOT more with 8 GB of RAM on a console than they'd be able to with 8 GB of RAM on a pc.
2. You continue to use Skyrim, the very worst example of all. The game that literally made me put my controller down and go out and build my own pc. We're not talking momentarily frustrated, we're talking dedicated research and swooping up deals the moment I found them over the course of four months to put put together a heck of a machine for as cheap as possible. But the reality is, most other games don't come close to that tragedy. It's the only game I'm aware of that caused systems to actually crash and the reason is moreso developer lasiness by not getting rid of bloated assets for either consoles that caused it in a way that QAing doesn't easily catch. Having been a QA engineer, I believe that's where they dropped the ball. They didn't just play through the game enough to catch the bug and I don't know that any company would have typically caught that when the error wouldn't even show up for 20 hours in and only if they'd generated enough assets (multiple towns, dragons, dungeons, etc). Other games, the ones you mentioned, have low FPS here and there but so do comparable pcs that are much more poweful on paper but only relatively so in output. You think pcs didn't have some god awful lagging on the minimum Skyrim specs? They did. Now cut off 1.5GBs of RAM and make the CPU/GPU six years old and you have the 360/ps3.
So the way you make this argument isn't just off because of Skyrim being your leading example (albeit one of others you have brought up), it's that you think that the PCs didn't have similar and often times worse issues. Now that the console versions are largely patched with anti-bloat patches they don't have the same problems those videos mentioned from the first 4-6 months after the game's release. This shows a developer's error here. But pcs had similar problems with significant CTD occurances and huge FPS drops that have also been made better since. Yes, I can get a pc with four titans slapped in it and dance a merry jig around the ps4 and the Xbone but the < $1,000 options will have the same kind of trouble in 5/6 years. The $400 option will have the a huge problem after about two yeas. How far after two years depends on what you got for $400 and how far this generation launches the pc market. Honestly, I don't think it'll be as severe as this generation that launched the market over 4x's the standard. I think we're looking at somewhere between 2X and maybe 3X but I could be wrong with another 4X hitting the market again. That'd be remarkable. With 16GB RAM the ending standard and 32GB RAM Being the slight splurge.
Eh, I read every word you said. But if it makes you feel better or like you have more control in the discussion then that's your prerogative. I still get the satisfaction of having researched my response and therefore having become a more knowledgeable person.
Orekoya said:
Do you not understand phrase 'other than'? Yea I'm sure you read every word.Lightknight said:
Edit:
Oh, also on your first point, I'm not mistaken because I didn't say that you said that 'the consoles are somehow inherently better than pcs' at any time. Mostly because from the content of your initial post I assumed you favored pcs to consoles despite the faults you find in it. You know, because you said 'PCs have their advantages and I enjoy mine' then followed that up with the amount you spent on yours which is far more than a non-pc gamer would spend on a rig. Please, please find whoever you're having this argument with then have it with them.