PC gaming is crushing consoles

However this statement implies they aren't present

"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."

But it's "relatively" hack free,derp.

Can't you read properly lostrib?

Console gaming is relatively hack free.

But you initially stated it was hack free

You guys have been hanging out too much

Console gaming has been hack free for me.

you =\= the rest of the gaming population

So it's not hack free like you mentionned

its not played because its s*it.... just liek CoD is barely played. hacking is but 1 piece of that puzzle.

"Walled off" isnt refering to game modes you numpty.... talking about the software's flexibility for communty/developement.... in other words, like most console games. non existant.

One hacker every blue moon is basically hack free.

CoD was huge on pc until they switched to matchmaking and the game turned into a hackfest. CoD is still the most played shooter by far.

No need for name calling. Where's your proof on software flexibility being the reason?

....in your experience

On pc Ive never seen hacking on secure servers so is that the true for everyone else? No Your experience is not the whole ball of wax.

Can you back this up?

I already said I've never seen a hacker on console. You don't know what the blue moon phrase means.

Don't try to claim that every console MP games are hack-free solely based on your experience

Can you refute it?

It's a simple fact that cheating is incredibly rare on console. Too much work and risk goes into hacking on console.

A simple fact that you back up with your experience?

And the experience of others.

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said: You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005

The 360 was comparable to a high end pc when it launched. Look at the reqs of all the multiplats those minumum req pc's were either not even available in 2005 or bleeding edge. Todays equivalent would have been if the xbone launched with a gtx680 and an i7.

If you read the entire link instead of just the title you'd know why and FYI it's not dominating AAA the games we care about Consoles are.

PS4 Made Up Largest Part of Ubisoft Game Sales During the Last 3 Months, Doubles Xbox One and PC Sales

Last week, publisher Ubisoft revealed that its recent game releases have sold very well. So well, in fact, that the company's sales in the last three months have risen 374 percent over the same time period in 2013. But one of the big questions during Ubisoft's earnings call was how those sales were distributed over the platforms. On the day of the call, the company also published a breakdown of the software sales by system, and it turns out that games sold best on the PlayStation 4 by a wide margin.

Driven by a very strong performance by March's release of Watch Dogs, over 50 percent of Ubisoft's software revenue came from the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 during the past three months. But Ubisoft games on the PS4 sold much better than on Xbox One. Sales on the PS4 made up 36 percent of Ubisoft's revenue, more than double the One's 17 percent. It's interesting to note that PS4 revenue also more than doubled sales on PC, which came in at 14 percent of total sales.

You can check out the entire console breakdown over the last three months below. Software sales for the Wii U, Vita, and 3DS were negligible over this time period.

No.

More peasant bullshit and outright lies.

I owned both a "high end" PC and a 360 and the 360 never once came close to my PC; not even at the 360's launch.

Ffs, the 360 had 512MB of RAM. Even first gen smartphones had more RAM than the previous gen's consoles.

My PC of '05 was running 16 times the 360's RAM with 8GB. 9 years later, I now have 32X that amount of RAM and roll with 16GB.

you buy a console, it lasts for 5 plus years

you buy a gaming pc and its costs more upfront and you are constantly upgrading

Obviously more money is going to be spent on pc hardware

Bullshit.

CoD 2 was 360 launch game and required a 7800gt to match the 360's graphics and performance. That was top of the line when CoD 2 launched. Look at all the multiplats that require core 2 duos and 8800gt's, both of which weren't available until a year after the 360 launched.

define constantly

24h per day,7 days a week,52 weeks per year

Well in that case...

CoD 2's graphics and performance were also subsequently exceeded by any PC with a 7800 and more RAM, and no, such a system did not cost anywhere close to $2000.

You do realize that there are more components involved than just a GPU when determining a platform's overall power potential?

The 360's Xenos graphics chip was developed by AMD/ATI, so if you're going to try and compare it, then you should at least use a comparable (inferior) AMD/ATI product (i.e. Radeon X1800).

In November 2006, a year after the 360's debut, NVIDIA released its 8000 series and any delusions of parity were annihilated for the remainder of the generation.

It's even funnier to hear the peasants' lies this generation with all the claims of "to the metal" access all while conveniently ignoring the inherent weaknesses of APUs versus discrete CPUs and GPUs.

How well would that pc of yours from 2005 be running today's multiplats or even multiplats from 4 years ago?

Why do I need to compare specifically to amd? We're just talking about graphics and performance.

A $600 gpu released in 2006 beats a $400 console from 2005? Who would have thought!

What does that have to do with anything you have said?

I upgrade as needed to maintain a certain level of quality because I have the option.

You should compare it to an equivalent AMD card because it's a more truthful comparison (i.e. it's not an apples to oranges comparison) since AMD are the one's that designed the Xenos chip using a lot of their existing X1800 architecture.

$600 at the the absolute bleeding edge (GTX) of the time with a range of models from $200 up. (All more powerful than the graphical capabilities of either console of the time).

Back to your original point though, you said that a $2000 PC from '05 was required to match the performance of a 360 at its release.

Deduct $400 for the 7800 and you've still got $1600 to work with, so you're basically trying to claim that every one of those dollars would be needed to match the performance of a kids gaming box?

Are you including a monitor as an expense, or are you just talking out your ass like a peasant?

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

How well would that pc of yours from 2005 be running today's multiplats or even multiplats from 4 years ago?

Why do I need to compare specifically to amd? We're just talking about graphics and performance.

What does that have to do with anything you have said?

I upgrade as needed to maintain a certain level of quality because I have the option.

You should compare it to an equivalent AMD card because it's a more truthful comparison (i.e. it's not an apples to oranges comparison) since AMD are the one's that designed the Xenos chip using a lot of their existing X1800 architecture.

@Cranler said:

A $600 gpu released in 2006 beats a $400 console from 2005? Who would have thought!

$600 at the the absolute bleeding edge (GTX) of the time with a range of models from $200 up. (All more powerful than the graphical capabilities of either console of the time).

Back to your original point though, you said that a $2000 PC from '05 was required to match the performance of a 360 at its release.

Deduct $400 for the 7800 and you've still got $1600 to work with, so you're basically trying to claim that every one of those dollars would be needed to match the performance of a kid's gaming box?

Are you including a monitor as an expense, or are you just talking out your ass like a peasant?

How long the hardware lasts is quite important.

Whatever card the 7800gt compares with is fine. You wont find an exact comparison of the 360 gpu even with amd.

What 8xxx series model gpu was sold in 2006 for $200? I recall just the 8800gtx and gts with the gtz being arounnd $400.

You want apples to apples? Well consoles are prebuilt so we need to compare with prebuilt pc's. Top of the line prebuilts are usually around $3,000 so I'm being generous by saying just $2,000.

I could probably have remained on a 7800 series card for the entirety of the previous console generation to maintain "parity" with the peasants, but I'm not sure why I would when I had the option to upgrade.

Your statement makes it sound like GPUs "wearing out" is a common occurrence, but I've never had a card die on me. I can't say the same for consoles that I have owned.

The hardware tends to "last" as long you remain content with your current resolution and framerate capabilities.

You're right, you're not going to find an "exact" comparison because PCs don't use graphics chips, but you can at least make a more accurate comparison by comparing the chip to a GPU that was designed and made by the same manufacturer that produced the Xbox chip; using some of their existing architecture from the GPU being compared.

It wasn't released till '07, but the 8800GT. GTX's went for $600 and the GTS for $400 when they debuted.

That's an interesting interpretation of a concept you clearly don't understand, but it's also a really pathetic attempt to redefine your peasant argument.

You should be flogged for it.

Consoles are prebuilt because there is NO option to build your own.

This was good stuff.

@Cranler "Top of the line" Prebuilts are about $1600

Min req for many games is 8800gt. Many pc games are dx10-11 only. First dx 10 only game was in 2010. So no, a 7800 wouldn't have cut it unless you wanted to skip a lot of games.

I'm talking about how long before it's obsolete not dies.

Comparing the 360 gpu perfomance to an nvidia gpu that has same performance as an amd gpu is the same thing.

8800gt came out in late 2007. It's right there in the link.

$1800 Self built pc to match the 360 with 2005 pricing. My $2000 estimate was quite close.

7800 gt $500/ athlon x2 $500/ mb $150/2gb ram $250/case $100/psu $50/250 gb hd $100/w 98 $100/dvd drive $50

Your link takes me to a quad core with a 270x. 6 core from intel for top of the line and ssd as the main drive btw.

6 core intel CPU will be useless for gaming that is not "top of the line".

i'm the same man. i enjoy working on my pc, cars, motorbikes, I enjoy all kinds of work.

and working on my pc doesn't just mean hardware either, you're probably the same. sometimes it means messing about in blender, gimp, photoshop, premiere pro, sculptris, a cpp IDE, shit - even cryengine. i find this a really healthy outlet.

but no i don't think they know that. i also don't think they know how little time it takes someone competent to do an upgrade. I can do most upgrades in less time than it takes to play Metallica's Master of Puppets.

Dual cores were useless in 2005.

Most people don't that's why most people don't even change their own oil.

i would not want to be one of those people.

You speak as if they're not the majority. Maybe some people would rather play a musical instrument while you tinker with engines.

cool! i do both those things! (obviously, not at the same time, and RIP dimebag, the GOAT)

nah, i never spoke about folk such as motokid/myself as though we were the majority. motokid volunteered his thoughts and i chimed in and spoke for myself. i also never disagreed when you said the majority of people don't change their own oil.

obviously - it's true most people don't do things like change their oil. a lot of the guys i speak to who don't change their own oil, well they don't do it ... not because they don't want to, but because they're scared they'll do something wrong and ruin their car. however that's just one anecdote. i'm sure there's a wealth of reasons (including possibly wealth?)

If they really wanted to they could learn but most people just like to relax when not at work or at least spend time on something that's not considered work. I'd rather sit and play with my phone while someone else changes my oil.

mmm exactly. to each their own. i'm a pretty motivated human.

what kind of oil does your Ducati take anyway bro?

Cranler seems to get worked up about the silliest things

Nice try, but Crysis was released in '08 and even it still supported NVIDIA 6800 / ATI 9800 Pro cards with an 8800 series card being "recommended."

Most devs continued supporting DX9 over 10 for a considerable period even after 10's release.

An 8800 series card minimum requirement didn't really start until 2011 with games like The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2, but these were both exceptions known for their graphical beastliness.

So even 6 years after the 360's release, upgrading was only "required" if you were determined to play a handful of titles or use DX10 which most devs still weren't actively supporting.

I don't know what any of this has to do with your initial hyperbolic statement, but I have noticed your penchant for derailing threads through a stream of endless tangential replies.

Much longer than you seem to think.

Comparing the 360's graphics chip to an AMD GPU that has similar performance and provided a template for much of the Xbox's chip's architecture is a more legitimate comparison, especially when NVIDIA's GPUs were more powerful than AMD's at the time.

And?

It's part of the same series of cards. It also debuted ~4 years before the first games requiring a minimum of an 8800 even started to appear.

7800GT's could be found for $400-$450 following their release.

I have no idea where you're getting your processor quote.

The 360 used a 3.2Ghz tri-core PowerPC processor.

The closest tri-core AMD processor that I found was not even released until 2010 and it's probably a lot more powerful than '05 tech, but for some crazy reason it still only cost $87 upon release and not your ridiculously overestimated $500.

When did consoles get into overclocking?

Yeah, so you can do away with about $75 of your estimated motherboard price.

I was not aware that MS released some 360s with 4x the amount of RAM of other Xboxes.

Oh yeah, they didn't. Your RAM costs are also around $50 too much for 2GB.

512 MB RAM: $90.

$50 too much on your case estimate. This is not a boutique PC.

250GB HDD Xboxes were not available till 2010. In 2007 they offered the first Xbox with a HDD > than 20GB. The 120GB version for a measly $479.

20GB 5400 RPM HDD $50 (I'm probably being $20 too generous with this estimate since it is a 5400 drive).

DVD drive $25. Xboxes weren't using Blu-ray DVD drives.

I don't know if you could even still buy copies of '98 in 2005, but if you could, then I doubt that they cost $100.

$100 WIndows XP.

$877 and it's capable of much more than just playing games.

Once again, your original peasant claim is littered with outright lies and convenient distortions.

What do you know ? An i3 4360 beats a Quad core from 2005.

Consoles are quickly becoming pointless, online play pay wall, less than stellar hardware... very few games.

I have a decent gaming PC, and the one thing I realized that my PC from 6 years ago was still more powerful than the consoles. $150 update doubled my GPU specs well before the release of the new consoles.

I have a huge back log of games on PC that are still compatible with my latest GPU addition. Unlike my 360 -> one which was kind of pointless. The only reason i got a xone instead of ps4 was because my console buddies all got the xone.

I no longer need a second powerful gaming PC for a "console" because steam introduced streaming, which works on my yoga 2 pro as a console. I can also play on my cousin's account because steam introduced family sharing.

Console gaming is like being in a hole. Once your in the hole its much harder to get out. You get food thrown to you on a regular basis but the options are limited and generally need to go threw the owner of the hole to make sure they haven't violated any pay wall rules or innovated faster than makes them feel comfortable. So you're left with a subpar experience but your kept happy.

You could however buy a house. Depending on the amount you spend on the house the views could be from good to amazing. Once you have the house, its very easy to maintain and the food available has much more variety. You're no longer held back by the keeper of the hole, but you can safely venture into the hole for some of the more exotic foods being given there exclusively.

I used to look at consoles and defend them quite a bit, but with the change from old gen to new, i didn't like the fact that 360/ps3 didn't take a more incremental approach with backwards compatibility. I didn't like the idea of all of my content dieing with one of the system's. I couldn't bring my dlc over, if either console died good by games. PC gaming is for long term gaming. Valve's platform agnostic stance allows me to play my games any where they are supported. Valve is completely pushing user generated content making it easier than ever to find free dlc. The only point to console gaming is because people are poor and can't afford to get out of the hole.

Nice try? I proved you couldn't keep your 7800 if you wanted to play all games.

8800 minimum began in 2010 with Just Cause 2.

Nothing wrong with comparing the nividia's amd equivalent to the 360 gpu.

I asked what $200 card in 2006 and you link a 2007 card.

After 5 years if you bought top of the line and by that point we're talking 30 fps and 30 fps is choppier on a monitor than a tv.

Using msrp unless you can prove it was impossible to find stores selling 360's under msrp.

I'm using a 2005 build with athlon x2's which is the only cpu that would last you through 2010. The first wave of dual core's were very expensive as well were the motherboards. Lol using a 2010 cpu price for a 2005 build.

So your saying pc's can run games with the same amount of memory as consoles?

Console games run off the disc, pc games don't so I listed a typical size for the era.

no one gives a shit a bout pc in the real. its an irrelevant platform.