Short answer: No, PCs will always be superior.6unn3r said:Personaly ive always been a pc gamer so i am a bit biased on this issue, however i think it's worth a look. Bellow is a screenshot from Crysis on the PC. Can consoles ever hope to match up to graphics like this? Given that it takes a pc to program and build a console game will there always be some measure of downgrading to make any given game work on a console? Or since the constant upgrading and updating of pc's is neverending will it take a console sent back in time to beat pc's on graphics and looks alone?
Ideas?
All the best PC games of the past decade have been scalable, from the highest end of the spectrum, to the lowest end. Steam takes user hardware surveys every month to evaluate which technology is being phased in and out, how multi-CPU adoption trends are going, and most importantly, to find a middle-ground. They share this information with the public and their associates and they create their new games based on these stats.mariofan1000 said:Maybe, if PC developer's stopped assuming everyone owned a super computer.
A mid-range PC will always cost the same price, regardless of the tech inside at the time. A mid-range PC in 2010, will go for the same < $1000 price tag as a mid-range PC in 2005 - the difference is, while in 2005 you may have got a Pentium 4 machine, nowadays "mid-range" will get you Dual or Quad core, a new Nvidia or ATi card, and 4GB of RAM at least. And most PC developers will optimize their products for the mid-range and below-average stuff.JeanLuc761 said:I'm genuinely STAGGERED by the ignorance in this post. Everything you just said is a tired stereotype.Archangel357 said:They love doing that, don't they.
But the whole question is silly - an XBox 360 is $150, which means that some RAM and a couple of coolers for a gaming PC will set you back more than that. A seriously powerful rig now costs as much as a PS3, a 3D LED HDTV, and a bunch of games put together. Yeah, with $2,500, you can make Crysis look as good as that, but is it worth it?
To play games?
PCs evolve, sure, but a new graphics card costs you more than a console, so that argument is moot. and come on now, how many people have a top-tier triple SLI running alongside a three years old CPU? Thought so.
The thing is, the number of people buying über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs is on the wane. Laptops continue to increase market share, because for 99.5% of the stuff that people do, an $800 laptop is totally sufficient. And a PS3 can easily compete with that.
Furthermore, it's funny how it's precisely the same people who spend thousands of dollars on a gaming system so they can brag about how much better everything looks who only actually buy 10% of their games. So potentially, sure, a PC will always be more powerful than any console.
The question is when people will stop programming games (or optimising graphics) for the handful of pirating, faux-élitist people out there.
As has been said for years now, $600-700 will get you a PC that blows any console out of the water, and has more varied uses as well.
Secondly, I don't know a single person who buys "über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs," as that's an extremely small percentage of the PC gamers. Chances are, those people are either filthy rich, a hobbyist, or professional gaming is their actual job.
Third, your assumption that basically all PC gamers are filthy pirates. Bull. Fucking. Shit. Piracy is a problem, and it's more prevalent on PC than any other platform, I will not deny that. But you're still talking out of your ass. Xbox 360 piracy is rampant, Nintendo DS piracy is HORRIFYING. And yet, it's still only the PC that gets the flak for it.
Finally, your last sentence basically lost you any credibility you might have had. You basically think that PC gamers have no right to their platform of choice?
Folks, I believe we have a console elitist here.
Okay, I'm sure Crysis can run on a cheaper machine, I've never tried. I tend to find, though, that though you bought your machine for under a thousand dollars, after a few years, you've spent more than that on upgrades. I do build and maintain my own, but for the price of a new console, I can get a video card with no other new parts.bahumat42 said:- snipping all the quotes -
crysis will not only run , but run well on under a thousand dollars (assuming your competent enough to self build).
And are you kidding on piracy all you need is a wrie and an empty cartridge, both very easy to get, to the extent every ds owner i know has at least one ripped game, if not a fair few. Il agree the x360 piracy is more tricky (considering the banhammer of xbox live) but still workable, i know some1 who had been banned 6 times because for him its cheaper to pirate 16 games and then buy a new harddrive at 80 quid (Which it is).
1. You don't have to build your own xbox. Thats why I was comparing the xbox to a packaged PC.JeanLuc761 said:*resists the admittedly tempting urge to rage over the stereotype*Warped_Ghost said:Well that depends how you look at it. Consoles are cheaper, an xbox probably wont make that type of quality picture but the thing only cost 300$ while that PC is probably 1000$ or more.
*takes deep breath*
Alright, here we go. Yes, an Xbox does an impressive amount for $300, but building an equivalent PC should, if you're savvy, take no more than $500-600 to get a machine that will not only destroy the Xbox on any game out there, but is also capable of much more than just gaming.