Laptops and Macs are holding back pc gaming more than consoles

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"] Console games have caught up and possibly surpassed PC's with graphics.

LordRork

No. Console graphics are still behind what the PC is capable of, living in a fairly weak DX9 land. Even a DX9-only PC will be creating a better quality picture than any of the consoles.

Add in HD output to HD TVs, Blu Ray, stores to download movies or stream netflix, and why would anyone shell out for a gaming PC?

-ArchAngeL-777-

The PC can do all of those, and only one console can do all of them (specifically, Blu-Ray on PS3). The PC is a versatile tool - expensive, certainly, but you can get a machine that does exactly what you want it to, not what some manufacturer is trying to push (specifically, HD-DVD on the 360). The PC isn't some awesome, god-slaying piece of hardware, but its capabilities are only limited by what you want it to do.

Want a cheap, everyday PC? Go for it. Want a hardcore, quad-core 1000W monster? Ditto. The PC can be a great piece of hardware that's easily overlooked.

[QUOTE="LordRork"]

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]

No. Console graphics are still behind what the PC is capable of, living in a fairly weak DX9 land. Even a DX9-only PC will be creating a better quality picture than any of the consoles.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]

Add in HD output to HD TVs, Blu Ray, stores to download movies or stream netflix, and why would anyone shell out for a gaming PC?

savagetwinkie

The PC can do all of those, and only one console can do all of them (specifically, Blu-Ray on PS3). The PC is a versatile tool - expensive, certainly, but you can get a machine that does exactly what you want it to, not what some manufacturer is trying to push (specifically, HD-DVD on the 360). The PC isn't some awesome, god-slaying piece of hardware, but its capabilities are only limited by what you want it to do.

Want a cheap, everyday PC? Go for it. Want a hardcore, quad-core 1000W monster? Ditto. The PC can be a great piece of hardware that's easily overlooked.

you litterally just plug an HDMI cable...thats all you do. It is identicle to what you do on a console. And you havent even come close to matching crysis, not to mention the many other PC games out there that look better then anything you would find on a console.

dc337, how about you play some console games besides spending all of your time moaning about your perceived insecurities regarding PC gaming? If it's so doomed, let it be and move on. Let the "minority" enjoy the games how we enjoy them. Posting your tiring topics on the forums isn't helping any gamer or the industry at large.dgsag

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yeah if you go out and buy the first thing you see.. If you actuallY RESEARCh what you buy, you can get a extremely good laptop for under $1000..

dc337

Blizzard has already figured out that the money is in the millions of igpus that exist, not the 'hardcore' crowd. LucasArts is doing the same with their dated-looking Star Wars MMO.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="LordRork"]

The PC can do all of those, and only one console can do all of them (specifically, Blu-Ray on PS3). The PC is a versatile tool - expensive, certainly, but you can get a machine that does exactly what you want it to, not what some manufacturer is trying to push (specifically, HD-DVD on the 360). The PC isn't some awesome, god-slaying piece of hardware, but its capabilities are only limited by what you want it to do.

Want a cheap, everyday PC? Go for it. Want a hardcore, quad-core 1000W monster? Ditto. The PC can be a great piece of hardware that's easily overlooked.

cobrax25

you litterally just plug an HDMI cable...thats all you do. It is identicle to what you do on a console. And you havent even come close to matching crysis, not to mention the many other PC games out there that look better then anything you would find on a console.

Have look at the April Steam hardware survey.

Interesting points:

The most common OS is Windows XP 32 bit with nearly 40% share. Remember that DirectX10 and 11 require Vista or 7.

The most common RAM amount is 2 gigabytes.

The most common display resolution is 1280x1024.

What this amounts to is that pc game developers cannot build DX10 games without ignoring a large chunk of the market. Nvidia is currently pushing a DX11 card which is a joke when most pc games don't even require DX10.

I believe this problem will only be made worse by the trend towards laptops and Macs. The low-end gpu demographic is growing while the high-end is losing influence.

High-end pc gaming is pretty much doomed. It's just too much of a risk for developers to target the latest pc tech when there are safer demographics like consoles and average pcs.

The only thing that can save high-end pc gaming at this point is for hardware companies to invest in game development, even if at a short term loss. Nvidia and AMD seem to think that developers will be jumping over to DX11 but based on current trends they will be tied to DX9 for years to come.

dc337

[QUOTE="dc337"]

Have look at the April Steam hardware survey.

Interesting points:

The most common OS is Windows XP 32 bit with nearly 40% share. Remember that DirectX10 and 11 require Vista or 7.

The most common RAM amount is 2 gigabytes.

The most common display resolution is 1280x1024.

What this amounts to is that pc game developers cannot build DX10 games without ignoring a large chunk of the market. Nvidia is currently pushing a DX11 card which is a joke when most pc games don't even require DX10.

I believe this problem will only be made worse by the trend towards laptops and Macs. The low-end gpu demographic is growing while the high-end is losing influence.

High-end pc gaming is pretty much doomed. It's just too much of a risk for developers to target the latest pc tech when there are safer demographics like consoles and average pcs.

The only thing that can save high-end pc gaming at this point is for hardware companies to invest in game development, even if at a short term loss. Nvidia and AMD seem to think that developers will be jumping over to DX11 but based on current trends they will be tied to DX9 for years to come.

Zero_epyon

Macs can actually support pretty large resolutions, example 27" iMac that goes beyond 1080p. I believe that most people that use 1280x1024 monitors are the same people that are still using XP. They never upgrade anything and still play the same games. Hence why they still have XP and not vista or 7 that support DX 10 and 11.Zero_epyon

I can pc game on my HP "Dragon" 20 inch laptop and can play nearly all games at high just fine. I just don't PC game that much thats all.

Games can be integrated graphics-friendly or console graphics-friendly while still looking great on the newer graphics cards. As I said before: game quality is variable on the PC. PC games are designed to scale down to older hardware

Ginosaji

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="dc337"]

Have look at the April Steam hardware survey.

Interesting points:

The most common OS is Windows XP 32 bit with nearly 40% share. Remember that DirectX10 and 11 require Vista or 7.

The most common RAM amount is 2 gigabytes.

The most common display resolution is 1280x1024.

What this amounts to is that pc game developers cannot build DX10 games without ignoring a large chunk of the market. Nvidia is currently pushing a DX11 card which is a joke when most pc games don't even require DX10.

I believe this problem will only be made worse by the trend towards laptops and Macs. The low-end gpu demographic is growing while the high-end is losing influence.

High-end pc gaming is pretty much doomed. It's just too much of a risk for developers to target the latest pc tech when there are safer demographics like consoles and average pcs.

The only thing that can save high-end pc gaming at this point is for hardware companies to invest in game development, even if at a short term loss. Nvidia and AMD seem to think that developers will be jumping over to DX11 but based on current trends they will be tied to DX9 for years to come.

savagetwinkie

Laptops and Macs are holding back pc gaming more than consoles

dc337

So..umm... saying Laptops and Macs are holding pcgaming back more might sound like a decent theory, but it doesn't translate to reality all that well.

What's really limiting pcgaming is simply budgets. To make amazing looking action game you need to invest at least 20 mln dollars on consoles. Sure...making pc games is cheaper than console ones, but it's still a huge investment to make a game with such production values. And PCgaming is simply niche, it lacks the ability to support many mega productions

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="LordRork"]

The PC can do all of those, and only one console can do all of them (specifically, Blu-Ray on PS3). The PC is a versatile tool - expensive, certainly, but you can get a machine that does exactly what you want it to, not what some manufacturer is trying to push (specifically, HD-DVD on the 360). The PC isn't some awesome, god-slaying piece of hardware, but its capabilities are only limited by what you want it to do.

Want a cheap, everyday PC? Go for it. Want a hardcore, quad-core 1000W monster? Ditto. The PC can be a great piece of hardware that's easily overlooked.

cobrax25

you litterally just plug an HDMI cable...thats all you do. It is identicle to what you do on a console. And you havent even come close to matching crysis, not to mention the many other PC games out there that look better then anything you would find on a console.

Oh no. Humans are too slow for the speed of technology advancement.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] Macs can actually support pretty large resolutions, example 27" iMac that goes beyond 1080p. I believe that most people that use 1280x1024 monitors are the same people that are still using XP. They never upgrade anything and still play the same games. Hence why they still have XP and not vista or 7 that support DX 10 and 11.Zero_epyon

well. I can't speak for everyone else. I have a 27" Imac, but I do most of my gaming on consoles. It's hard to believe, but I put quite a bit of money into PC's for work, multimedia functions and that it can do a lot of general things fast and well.

in question to the resolution. I've only played one game that I can use on the Imac 2560 x 1440 +, albiet it's Portal so far.

So..umm... saying Laptops and Macs are holding pcgaming back more might sound like a decent theory, but it doesn't translate to reality all that well.AdrianWerner

I fail to see the problem.

One of the disadvantages of PC gaming a few years ago was that you would buy a new high-end system and one year later there were already a few games you couldn't max. That disadvantage is gone now. So you don't have games like Crysis pushing graphics every year, so what? You still get the best version of most multiplats, you get plenty of exclusives in genres consoles can't touch and you get games that are still a much bigger technical accomplishment than anything on consoles, example: you may not like Arma 2 graphics style (too realistic for some) but it is one amazing game, the scale is just unbelievable, everything feels so authentic including the graphics.

Have look at the April Steam hardware survey.

Interesting points:

The most common OS is Windows XP 32 bit with nearly 40% share. Remember that DirectX10 and 11 require Vista or 7.

The most common RAM amount is 2 gigabytes.

The most common display resolution is 1280x1024.

What this amounts to is that pc game developers cannot build DX10 games without ignoring a large chunk of the market. Nvidia is currently pushing a DX11 card which is a joke when most pc games don't even require DX10.

I believe this problem will only be made worse by the trend towards laptops and Macs. The low-end gpu demographic is growing while the high-end is losing influence.

High-end pc gaming is pretty much doomed. It's just too much of a risk for developers to target the latest pc tech when there are safer demographics like consoles and average pcs.

The only thing that can save high-end pc gaming at this point is for hardware companies to invest in game development, even if at a short term loss. Nvidia and AMD seem to think that developers will be jumping over to DX11 but based on current trends they will be tied to DX9 for years to come.

dc337

1. NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT ~= Geforce 9500M GS/9600M GT ~= Geforce GT130M. These are CUDA 32 SPlevel GPUs.

2. NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GT(G92)(4.82%) ~= Geforce 9800 GT(G92)(3.92%). The combinedG92 type GPU (8.74%) exceeds Radeon HD 4800's 6.30%.

Maybe this will help :P.

This aside i'd disagree, since developers, don't seem to support mobile GPUs much as it usually says on steam game specs.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

So..umm... saying Laptops and Macs are holding pcgaming back more might sound like a decent theory, but it doesn't translate to reality all that well.dc337

And really...laptop users and especially Mac owners (even taking aside how ridicolous is to pretend Mac gaming forms big enough part of pc market to have that impact) are hardly the big audience for MMOs. Most MMOs look like crap and are outdated graphicaly for budgetary concerns.

Anyway Even with such simplistic graphics Old Republic is the most expensive game EA has ever funded, you think that without Macs and laptops EA would suddenly throw 300mln dollars into development of one game? Because that's how much it would easily cost to make it cutting age graphicaly

you completely failed to provide any backing to your theory. Post hoc ergo propter hoc line of thinking will only make people ridicule you.

My laptop has better specifications than the average on Steam. Perhaps I should give PC gaming another go!

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

So..umm... saying Laptops and Macs are holding pcgaming back more might sound like a decent theory, but it doesn't translate to reality all that well.dc337

Because its an MMO? even if you have a high end PC, a game like WOW will still lag if you put enough people into the same area.

Maybe this will help :P.

This aside i'd disagree, since developers, don't seem to support mobile GPUs much as it usually says on steam game specs.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

Maybe this will help :P.

This aside i'd disagree, since developers, don't seem to support mobile GPUs much as it usually says on steam game specs.

ronvalencia

Thats pretty cool, I had no idea you could do that, I always wondered about that though, because the GPU is the only real component (not literaly, but you know what I mean :)) that needs an upgrade if the rest is decent.

So is it then just a matter of installing the driver and changing your primary display options?

I think the thing with the MSI one is that its laptop powered, because they imply that was the reason they didn't go above a 5670 GPU, I think.

So is this quite a normal thing to do then? I wish the iMac had an express slot, the gaming lifespan would increase massively.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] how many people that game actually own a 27" imac, if they are spending that kind of money, they are getting a pc for gaming. I think most of the market share for mac right now is probably macbooksAdmiralBison

well. I can't speak for everyone else. I have a 27" Imac, but I do most of my gaming on consoles. It's hard to believe, but I put quite a bit of money into PC's for work, multimedia functions and that it can do a lot of general things fast and well.

in question to the resolution. I've only played one game that I can use on the Imac 2560 x 1440 +, albiet it's Portal so far.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

Maybe this will help :P.

This aside i'd disagree, since developers, don't seem to support mobile GPUs much as it usually says on steam game specs.

Darth_DuMas

I used PE4H-EC2C ExpressCard_to_PCI-Express slot adapter. Refer to http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/418851-diy-vidock-experiences.html

Thats pretty cool, I had no idea you could do that, I always wondered about that though, because the GPU is the only real component (not literaly, but you know what I mean :)) that needs an upgrade if the rest is decent.

So is it then just a matter of installing the driver and changing your primary display options?

I think the thing with the MSI one is that its laptop powered, because they imply that was the reason they didn't go above a 5670 GPU, I think.

So is this quite a normal thing to do then? I wish the iMac had an express slot, the gaming lifespan would increase massively.

MSI's solution is via laptop's ExpressCard slot i.e. similar to PE4H-EC2C ExpressCard_to_PCI-Express slot adapter or ViDock 2.

The ExpressCard slot can not supply enough electrical power to ATI Radeon HD 5670 GPU i.e. check ExpressCard's power output. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/laptops/2010/05/21/computex-2010-preview-msi/1

I use a normal PC power supply. Some laptops are not fully ExpressCard compliant e.g. ASUS G1Sn (2008 ), ASUS N80Vn (2008-2009).For more information refer to http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/418851-diy-vidock-experiences.html

My head is just spinning listening to numbers and acronyms, this is why Console gaming is winning, ppl just want to play games and share with with their friends in the living room, pc gaming is secular, isolated and what mole ppl play today. PC gaming died along time ago for me and for more than you think whatever u want to fool yourselves, u guys are a minority, deal with it.

7jack

The PC is options.. You can hook your computer up to your big screen and play just like you would a console.. Its greatest strenght and greatest weakness is the fact its a open platform and you can do anything you want with it.. Unlike consoles.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

Maybe this will help :P.

This aside i'd disagree, since developers, don't seem to support mobile GPUs much as it usually says on steam game specs.

ronvalencia

I find that this is a problem with the nature of PC gaming. Every system is different and games will run diferrently because of it. A small percentage of PC gamers are PC enthusiasts compared who have crysis rigs. The problem is that they assume everyon has a system that capable. It's silly to single out a particular group and say that they're bringing PC gaming down. Not true at all. I would like to see a survey about the actual hardware these PC's use. You'd get a huge list. That's why I sometimes prefer consoles. It's been programmed(in most cases) with my system in mind and runs like it should. No worries about compatibility or settings.

The same reason why WoW camed out in 2004 looking like 2001 game? And that era was the height of pc graphical progress and yet it still looked outdated.AdrianWerner

You'd get a huge list. That's why I sometimes prefer consoles. It's been programmed(in most cases) with my system in mind and runs like it should. No worries about compatibility or settings.

Zero_epyon

I think even the 'average' PC gamer knows the limits of their system. While they may not know quite how well the game will run or what settings are best (though many games can auto-setup such things), which is a potential problem, they should at least be able to manage their expectations. Even compatibility problems are fairly rare these days.

If they haven't got at least some awareness, they're probably not PC gamers (or at least don't define themselves as such) and are better off with a console for exactly the reason you mention.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]The same reason why WoW camed out in 2004 looking like 2001 game? And that era was the height of pc graphical progress and yet it still looked outdated.dc337

Regarding The Old Republic.

You're talking about an MMO here. It's the last type of game where you'd want to try to push the technological boundaries for a number of reasons:

- MMO's tend to be very open-ended. In crysis, the designers can control how many moving objects you'll ever see onscreen at once. In an MMO players can (and will) gather by the hundreds in limited areas. If you have anything near 'high end graphics' for average game play, adding hundreds of other players, each with customizable gear (more graphical and CPU load), customizable race, hair color, height, weapons, gender and it will in many cause the game to become unplayable. In an MMO you have to design the game for the worst case situations, you cannot assume that you'll never have more than 5 / 10 / 20 creatures or players on screen at once.

- MMO's tend to have a strong focus on continues updates. One of the huge advantages of the WoW approach to MMO graphics is that it reduces the file sizes that have to be downloaded by the end users. If you have more than a million people all trying to download a patch, the difference between 50 mb and 500mb becomes very very important.

- Better graphics also makes it a lot harder to make new armor / clothes / weapons / whatever going forward. It takes more work and effort to keep a running series of updates. If you're going to keep a constant stream up updates going you'll want to make it relatively simple to add new items to your game. High end graphics run counter to that goal.

Your general augment

I think you're seeing a 'problem' that has always existed. Chasing after the 'best graphics ever' game has always been a hobby for the minority of gamers. It's also not something that ever happened all the time. Sure a new 'pushing the boundaries title would come out every couple of years or so but it wasn't a constant progression.

Many of the best / most popular games didn't look very good for their time: Civilization or Masters of Orion 2, Warcraft / StarCraft / Diablo, Kotor1 and 2, Deus Ex was already using an old engine when released.

It's true that there have always been one or two companies pushing the boundaries (ID and Epic for example). And yes those companies are all now forced to work on multiple platforms. The problem is not that PC gamers have stopped upgrading their machines; it's that it now costs far more to utilize top end graphics than it did 5-10 years ago. The cost of making a game that look really good on the Quake 2 Engine or the Unreal engine was peanuts compared to what it costs to make a game look good on the Crytech engine. It's not that the new engines are worse. However each of the new fancy graphics improvements and effects requires an artist to make the actual art asset that will be used by those effects. The smoke clouds, shaders for lighting, shaders for friggen everything, it takes longer and thus more money to make higher res textures. In short it takes a lot more money to make one level or one monster with really good graphics compared to making a monster with average graphics.

It's not that they don't want to support top end machines, it's that that the better graphics you're trying to produce, the more your game will cost. So you end up sending far more for the minority of your costumers.

There are still companies pushing the boundaries of gaming graphics. Crytech is the obvious example but also creative Assembly with the Total War series. Arma II and STALKER both use advanced graphics options.

I thought the high end pc area was always niche? I thought PC gaming in general was niche. I don't see anything wrong with low end chipsets being the most prevalent. I don't believe most of the people buying those laptops at Best Buy for $300-$400 really care about PC gaming.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]The same reason why WoW camed out in 2004 looking like 2001 game? And that era was the height of pc graphical progress and yet it still looked outdated.dc337

Your not getting it are you? An MMO is completely different than your average game. It's purely multiplayer so yes lag is a factor. If your going to have thousands or even millions of people playing at the same time, to have high end graphics everyone would have to be on something like 50mb broadband. HD graphics in MMO's has more to do with bandwith than GPU's.

I thought the high end pc area was always niche? I thought PC gaming in general was niche. I don't see anything wrong with low end chipsets being the most prevalent. I don't believe most of the people buying those laptops at Best Buy for $300-$400 really care about PC gaming.

Jamisonia

Your not getting it are you? An MMO is completely different than your average game. It's purely multiplayer so yes lag is a factor. If your going to have thousands or even millions of people playing at the same time, to have high end graphics everyone would have to be on something like 50mb broadband. HD graphics in MMO's has more to do with bandwith than GPU's.

ducati101

[QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I thought the high end pc area was always niche? I thought PC gaming in general was niche. I don't see anything wrong with low end chipsets being the most prevalent. I don't believe most of the people buying those laptops at Best Buy for $300-$400 really care about PC gaming.

HOMIE_G64

I thought the high end pc area was always niche? I thought PC gaming in general was niche. I don't see anything wrong with low end chipsets being the most prevalent. I don't believe most of the people buying those laptops at Best Buy for $300-$400 really care about PC gaming.

Jamisonia

[QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I thought the high end pc area was always niche? I thought PC gaming in general was niche. I don't see anything wrong with low end chipsets being the most prevalent. I don't believe most of the people buying those laptops at Best Buy for $300-$400 really care about PC gaming.

dc337

This. The only thing I got out of this thread is that there is one person who is pissed that other people's mothers don't give out enough money to their kids so that they can buy super-duper gaming computers.HOMIE_G64

PC gaming is NOT held back by the PC gamers. In fact, PC gaming is currently NOT held back at all. HOMIE_G64

I'll ask you the same question.

Would the upcoming Star Wars MMO look like a game from 2004 if every laptop had at least an 8800?

[QUOTE="dc337"]

[QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I thought the high end pc area was always niche? I thought PC gaming in general was niche. I don't see anything wrong with low end chipsets being the most prevalent. I don't believe most of the people buying those laptops at Best Buy for $300-$400 really care about PC gaming.

Zero_epyon

[QUOTE="ducati101"]Your not getting it are you? An MMO is completely different than your average game. It's purely multiplayer so yes lag is a factor. If your going to have thousands or even millions of people playing at the same time, to have high end graphics everyone would have to be on something like 50mb broadband. HD graphics in MMO's has more to do with bandwith than GPU's.

dc337

[QUOTE="dc337"]

[QUOTE="ducati101"]Your not getting it are you? An MMO is completely different than your average game. It's purely multiplayer so yes lag is a factor. If your going to have thousands or even millions of people playing at the same time, to have high end graphics everyone would have to be on something like 50mb broadband. HD graphics in MMO's has more to do with bandwith than GPU's.

ducati101

[QUOTE="ducati101"][QUOTE="dc337"] Ok then explain how Age of Conan can have high res textures and high polygon count characters.

dc337

And where do you think that data comes from? I benchtested Age of connan on 3xGTX 280 while it ran butter smooth all settings high on a 50MB connection, it chugged like crazy on a 10MB connection with the same settings. Yes i agree Old republic is going to be GPU friendly to reach a wider audience, the same as SIMS 3 is. What i dont agree is MMO's cannot have the same graphical fidelity as other games. Age of Connan for example doesnt come close to a lot of PC games.

[QUOTE="ducati101"][QUOTE="dc337"] Ok then explain how Age of Conan can have high res textures and high polygon count characters.

dc337

The high end graphics in AoC caused a lot of issues, especially when you got a lot of players in the same area. Client crashes and poor performance plagued the siege game-play for example.

As explained before, there's a lot of reasons to go with a low end graphics approach for MMO's and there's not really a lot of compelling reasons to try to push the graphics in MMO's. I'm sure that the number of end users with compatible hardware is a very real reason for aiming at a low end graphics approach.

But to go back to your original argument. Do you have any reason to believe that the trend of that a large part of PC gamers using old machines is something new? My personal impression, is that this has always been the case.