Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?

[veloper]

I mean, "Beat" can kind of be looked at subjectively. It costs more to build a PC that can produce those amazing graphics than it does to drop 299 on a console and another 60 on a high-quality game, doesn't it? I know a lot of my buddies have incredible machines, including one guy that has built a full-on 3-D machine that he runs FFXIV on. I'm not really much of a PC guy, so i don't know. Can you folks out there build a PC capable of that screen shot's graphics for under $400? (I wouldn't be surprised if you could, actually. ;p)

$400 is what it costs on average to keep an existing PC up to date and capable of playing all the new games on high detail levels, every 2 to 3 years.

Per month that amounts to $13. Full priced console games cost 60. Full price on PC is 50, though 60 is becoming more common. Then again we got Steam specials and prices drop fast within a couple months.
So, the break even point is at about 1 new game per month. After that PC gaming becomes cheaper, for gamers who can upgrade their own rigs.

 

[Jekken6]

Consoles (when they come out, at least) have better graphics than PC games of that same time period. However, PC tends to surpass it fairly quickly and easily.

 

[NobodyPro]

My cheap PC isn't all that great but I can run all my favourite titles on high - very high graphics. Sure, I had to uninstall Crysis after my Windows 7 trial ran out and I could only run it at a level that caused horrible graphics glitches but what you should be saying is that 'Will console graphics ever beat the potential of PC graphics?'

What my PC runs and what it could run if I bought several hundred dollars worth of the latest hardware are two completely different things. Even if the next console generation can run 'Crysis Guy vs. the Na'vi: Episode 7, Let's just kill them beforehand, part 2, 40d, etc.' they will only beat the potential of PCs for about a week.

Also, I'm Australian so a new console game, or an old one occasionally (Halo 3 and Saints Row 1 bizarrely), will cost me a good $120AUD, while a new game on steam will cost me anything from $88AUD (Bugger off MW2) to $40AUD (Dead Rising 2). So in my personal opinion I'll only give a shit about consoles when upgrading my computer becomes more expensive than buying my games on the console.

 

[VonBrewskie]

I mean, "Beat" can kind of be looked at subjectively. It costs more to build a PC that can produce those amazing graphics than it does to drop 299 on a console and another 60 on a high-quality game, doesn't it? I know a lot of my buddies have incredible machines, including one guy that has built a full-on 3-D machine that he runs FFXIV on. I'm not really much of a PC guy, so i don't know. Can you folks out there build a PC capable of that screen shot's graphics for under $400? (I wouldn't be surprised if you could, actually. ;p)

$400 is what it costs on average to keep an existing PC up to date and capable of playing all the new games on high detail levels, every 2 to 3 years.

Per month that amounts to $13. Full priced console games cost 60. Full price on PC is 50, though 60 is becoming more common. Then again we got Steam specials and prices drop fast within a couple months.
So, the break even point is at about 1 new game per month. After that PC gaming becomes cheaper, for gamers who can upgrade their own rigs.

gotcha. that makes sense. A there is no doubt in my mind that PC's are capable of a higher level of detail. Still, don't you have to include the price of a hi-def monitor in that 400 dollars? Those are pretty pricey aren't they? (I don't know.) Also, with my PS3 for example, I did one minor 65$ upgrade to put a 320gb HD in, but other than that my PS3 has been untouched since 2007. I do think though that the price of peripherals tends to up the cost of my console a bit. But it's a one time cost.

 

[Dr. Wily III]

They did. With Epic Yarn. *runs off*

 

[Dr. Wily III]

They did. With Epic Yarn. *runs off*

Well I don't know about having superior graphics, but this game is the tits.

Sucks horrible to be european. *goes crying in an corner*

 

[crystalsnow]

No because PC's will always be more powerful (larger and more compatible with various hardware) so they can't be beaten.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No.

An explanation: A PC, even a fairly "weak" one, has at it's command resources that shame a console. A game optimized to use the exact hardware/software configuration of a relevant gaming pc of the era will look better than the equivalent console game.

Of course, there is an addendum. A PC game does not, necessarily, look better than it's console counterpart as the PC version of a game has to be able to scale in relation to the hardware. There is no such need in the Console version because the hardware will be, for all intents and purposes, identical across all iterations of the console. If the developer chooses to not let the game scale, then the result will not look any better. As a further addendum, just because the PC has more power doesn't mean it has unlimited power. My old gaming machine certainly put my 360 to shame on all fronts and yet It struggled to play GTA IV because little work had been done to optimize it for the PC platform.

So, the real answer is up in the air. Theoretically, it ought to be no if we compare optimized games. Realistically, the PC game often looks identical to the console counterpart. In actual fact, there are times when the PC version has worse graphics in spite of having more power at it's command.

 

[Plurralbles]

Yes. The day that a console company can patent something that is so much more advanced by leaps and bounds than anything ever and then sell it via their individual console, we'll have a console that exclusively has teh power to be the best graphics on teh market. But that day will never come.

 

[xmbts]

For me yes, but my PC blows so I don't really have any games on it. If you had a top of the line PC however, its a tough call.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Well that's good to hear. The vast majority of developers now just use a standard engine across all platforms and call it a day. Which leaves PC gamers on the short end of the stick. Glad I'll finally be able to put my expensive hardware to full use. Guess I should actually get around to finishing the first Crysis.

I love Crysis. It's open-ended mission structure is just... awesome. People say it has poor gameplay and shining graphics, but honestly, I think the gameplay is sheer amazing, and the graphics just add to the immersion. Once the "WOW!" factor wears off, there's a surprisingly tactical action FPS in there!

 

[Good morning blues]

There is a measurable improvement in the hardware of gaming PCs between Christmases. It takes a full generational cycle to see the same improvement in consoles. So no, consoles will never match PCs in terms of graphical capability.

 

[Reshkar]

If nobody have said this earlier, I'd like to point it out. Games(what you have a console in the first place for, or a PC) in general isn't all about graphics.

As far for the topic here, the PC will always be a step forward in terms of graphics.

 

[veloper]

I mean, "Beat" can kind of be looked at subjectively. It costs more to build a PC that can produce those amazing graphics than it does to drop 299 on a console and another 60 on a high-quality game, doesn't it? I know a lot of my buddies have incredible machines, including one guy that has built a full-on 3-D machine that he runs FFXIV on. I'm not really much of a PC guy, so i don't know. Can you folks out there build a PC capable of that screen shot's graphics for under $400? (I wouldn't be surprised if you could, actually. ;p)

$400 is what it costs on average to keep an existing PC up to date and capable of playing all the new games on high detail levels, every 2 to 3 years.

Per month that amounts to $13. Full priced console games cost 60. Full price on PC is 50, though 60 is becoming more common. Then again we got Steam specials and prices drop fast within a couple months.
So, the break even point is at about 1 new game per month. After that PC gaming becomes cheaper, for gamers who can upgrade their own rigs.

gotcha. that makes sense. A there is no doubt in my mind that PC's are capable of a higher level of detail. Still, don't you have to include the price of a hi-def monitor in that 400 dollars? Those are pretty pricey aren't they? (I don't know.) Also, with my PS3 for example, I did one minor 65$ upgrade to put a 320gb HD in, but other than that my PS3 has been untouched since 2007. I do think though that the price of peripherals tends to up the cost of my console a bit. But it's a one time cost.

Monitors last many PC upgrades and 22" screens have become so cheap, so there's just no point factoring them in.
Neither do I calculate the cost of the TV you need. You'd prolly have a TV and a monitor (and a PC) anyway even if you didn't play any games at all.

Hell, I didn't even factor in the cost of a console itself and PC gaming still comes out favourably.

If we knew how long the current console cycle was going to be (always used to be 5 years), we could do something like $500 / X years, for a console gamer who got the PS3 at launch in november 2006 and will buy the PS4 at launch aswell.
Suppose a PS4 in 2012 before xmas, then that would be $7/month for an up-to-date console VS $13/m for a PC.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

No.

Because it's impossible to update Graphic cards in consoles.

And that after a month of a new console, some hardware dev will make a better one.

 

[Nouw]

PC is ever evolving whereas it's set in stone for consoles for at least 3 years. PC will always be superior. Once consoles catch up, PC graphics will be so good it won't be funny!

 

[Gingerman]

I really do wonder why this question is even being asked.

Computer game animations, cut scenes and all on screen movement was all created using a 3d animation program (most likely 3ds max) on PC so the very fact that the "graphics" we're made on the PC tells you the answer rather plainly.

 

[Danish_4116]

I don't think that it will be able to keep up with the rate at which PC's are able to advance technologically. Let's say PlayStation 4 is released tomorrow and has the capabilities of a top of the line gaming PC at the moment. For the moment the PS4 is on par with the PC's capabilities and will even look better than mid-range PC's graphically. But, as new tech becomes available and cheaper, the PS4 will begin to lag behind graphically again.

 

[sibrenfetter]

It depends whether games are still developed for pc's by the big companies. With piracy and the enormous amount of testing needed, I think this is more of an issue. As the consoles grow, I think less and less games (especially AAAs) will be made available on the pc. So this would mean that qua capabilities the pc would still be superior, yet effectively be less. While I do not expect this in the near future, it would not suprise me to see it happen.

One other small point I want to make: Artwork is so much more important than the number of pixels or draw distances. I have seen console only games that are way prettier than any countergame on the pc. Not because of the strength of the console, but because of the absolutely stunning artwork (of course can work the other way as well).

 

[Altorin]

Will a generation of consoles beat the same generation's pc graphics? No, never.

However, tomorrow's consoles might beat today's pc graphics.