PC gaming is held back by PCs

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

A lesson from history:

Once upon a time PCs were quite sucky for gaming.

They had strong CPUs but the graphics and sound cards sucked.

So when VGA standard and SoundBlaster finaly came out, things started to change.

PCs could do playlable 3D graphics and colorful 2D graphics and nice sound.

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

But when the 3D accelerators came out, they surpassed the consoles by a wide margin.

But not all PCs had a 3D accelerator, hence consoles were still better than many PCs.

Then came out more powerful hardware and better graphics cards.

But many people were still gaming on older PCs, hence the next-gen consoles were better than many PCs.

PCs surpassed consoles by a wide margin again but there was no games showing it.

There was no games because many were still gaming on older PCs.

And then came the "HD" consoles and things changed.

They were like "gaming-oriented PCs" when they came out so developers focused on them more.

It took a while for PC to surpass them but not all did.

The amount of PCs in the world far surpasses all consoles combined but most come with crappy integrated graphics.

The enthusiast gaming PCs are relatively niche, in coparison with the large majority of PCs.

Finally, companies like AMD are pushing "console-quality" PC gaming to the mainsteam users with the APU tech.

The most popular PC games tend to be undemanding (both, hardware and gameplay-wise) games.

That's also why Diablo 3 sold so well - it's relatively undemanding and accessible.

CGI-quality graphics would be already possible on high-end PCs but there's not a big enough market for it or atleast that's what the developers/publishers think, hence we're waiting for next-gen consoles to do the push forward.

So when you point fingers, ask yourself who you should be pointing it at in the first place...

the_bi99man

When was this time you're thinking of, when consoles had 3D graphics accelerators and PCs didn't?

The TC is probably thinking that the N64 came out prior to the first 3D accelerators on the PC.

The N64 really had some revolutionary graphics for the day. If they only had went with CD-ROM instead of trying to be greedy with cartridges Sony might not be in the gaming industry today.

Also the only thing holding back PC are the market changes in gaming. Publishers have gone multiplat to make as much money as possible but not necessarily to make the best games possible. Also if you think that gaming is the only reason for a powerful PC you are really behind the times technologically. A high end graphics card can pull double and triple duty as a media player and workhorse for conversion apps and graphic arts work.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

A lesson from history:

Once upon a time PCs were quite sucky for gaming.

They had strong CPUs but the graphics and sound cards sucked.

So when VGA standard and SoundBlaster finaly came out, things started to change.

PCs could do playlable 3D graphics and colorful 2D graphics and nice sound.

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

But when the 3D accelerators came out, they surpassed the consoles by a wide margin.

But not all PCs had a 3D accelerator, hence consoles were still better than many PCs.

Then came out more powerful hardware and better graphics cards.

But many people were still gaming on older PCs, hence the next-gen consoles were better than many PCs.

PCs surpassed consoles by a wide margin again but there was no games showing it.

There was no games because many were still gaming on older PCs.

And then came the "HD" consoles and things changed.

They were like "gaming-oriented PCs" when they came out so developers focused on them more.

It took a while for PC to surpass them but not all did.

The amount of PCs in the world far surpasses all consoles combined but most come with crappy integrated graphics.

The enthusiast gaming PCs are relatively niche, in coparison with the large majority of PCs.

Finally, companies like AMD are pushing "console-quality" PC gaming to the mainsteam users with the APU tech.

The most popular PC games tend to be undemanding (both, hardware and gameplay-wise) games.

That's also why Diablo 3 sold so well - it's relatively undemanding and accessible.

CGI-quality graphics would be already possible on high-end PCs but there's not a big enough market for it or atleast that's what the developers/publishers think, hence we're waiting for next-gen consoles to do the push forward.

So when you point fingers, ask yourself who you should be pointing it at in the first place...

menes777

When was this time you're thinking of, when consoles had 3D graphics accelerators and PCs didn't?

The TC is probably thinking that the N64 came out prior to the first 3D accelerators on the PC.

The N64 really had some revolutionary graphics for the day. If they only had went with CD-ROM instead of trying to be greedy with cartridges Sony might not be in the gaming industry today.

Also the only thing holding back PC are the market changes in gaming. Publishers have gone multiplat to make as much money as possible but not necessarily to make the best games possible. Also if you think that gaming is the only reason for a powerful PC you are really behind the times technologically. A high end graphics card can pull double and triple duty as a media player and workhorse for conversion apps and graphic arts work.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

When was this time you're thinking of, when consoles had 3D graphics accelerators and PCs didn't?

lowe0

The TC is probably thinking that the N64 came out prior to the first 3D accelerators on the PC.

The N64 really had some revolutionary graphics for the day. If they only had went with CD-ROM instead of trying to be greedy with cartridges Sony might not be in the gaming industry today.

Also the only thing holding back PC are the market changes in gaming. Publishers have gone multiplat to make as much money as possible but not necessarily to make the best games possible. Also if you think that gaming is the only reason for a powerful PC you are really behind the times technologically. A high end graphics card can pull double and triple duty as a media player and workhorse for conversion apps and graphic arts work.

You game on archaic hardware that cannot produce full hd, from that perspective you are already behind the times.

Wow, you are a moron, TC.

Consoles are the ones that is holding PC back.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="menes777"]

The TC is probably thinking that the N64 came out prior to the first 3D accelerators on the PC.

The N64 really had some revolutionary graphics for the day. If they only had went with CD-ROM instead of trying to be greedy with cartridges Sony might not be in the gaming industry today.

Also the only thing holding back PC are the market changes in gaming. Publishers have gone multiplat to make as much money as possible but not necessarily to make the best games possible. Also if you think that gaming is the only reason for a powerful PC you are really behind the times technologically. A high end graphics card can pull double and triple duty as a media player and workhorse for conversion apps and graphic arts work.

tenaka2

You game on archaic hardware that cannot produce full hd, from that perspective you are already behind the times.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] And if someone simply has no need to do those things? Because I'm not converting video or doing design work, I'm behind the times?lowe0

You game on archaic hardware that cannot produce full hd, from that perspective you are already behind the times.

I still blame consololol

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You game on archaic hardware that cannot produce full hd, from that perspective you are already behind the times.

clyde46

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="lowe0"] Seems pretty current to me. How long has it been since the last major release on consoles?lowe0

major release in what? I'm not sure what you mean. I just said that consoles can't do full HD and this makes them behind the times.

Receiving support is not relevant, if the c64 was still getting software if would still be behind the times.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="clyde46"] The hardware on the 360 is from 2005..... Thats old in the technology world.tenaka2

major release in what? I'm not sure what you mean. I just said that consoles can't do full HD and this makes them behind the times.

Receiving support is not relevant, if the c64 was still getting software if would still be behind the times.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="lowe0"]And yet, if I recall correctly, it still receives software support. As I said, how long has it been since the last major releaae.?lowe0

Hardware *is* the platform..... Without it you cant run software.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Irrelevant, the fact stands that console hardware is way behind the curve. clyde46

Hardware *is* the platform..... Without it you cant run software.

We seem to have a conflict in the definition of "current", which has two meanings here.

There is current in terms of production model, in which the 360 is still Microsoft's current product release, that replaced the original Xbox.

Then there's current in terms of technology standards, in which 360 (and the other 7th gen consoles) fell behind over the years.

We seem to have a conflict in the definition of "current", which has two meanings here.

There is current in terms of production model, in which the 360 is still Microsoft's current product release, that replaced the original Xbox.

Then there's current in terms of technology standards, in which 360 (and the other 7th gen consoles) fell behind over the years.

AdobeArtist

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

We seem to have a conflict in the definition of "current", which has two meanings here.

There is current in terms of production model, in which the 360 is still Microsoft's current product release, that replaced the original Xbox.

Then there's current in terms of technology standards, in which 360 (and the other 7th gen consoles) fell behind over the years.

clyde46

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

We seem to have a conflict in the definition of "current", which has two meanings here.

There is current in terms of production model, in which the 360 is still Microsoft's current product release, that replaced the original Xbox.

Then there's current in terms of technology standards, in which 360 (and the other 7th gen consoles) fell behind over the years.

lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Finally, someone who actually has a handle on things.clyde46

Semantic wars starring lowe!blue_hazy_basic

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="lowe0"] Oh, I understand the difference in performance. I'm arguing that that's not necessarily the best determinant of whether consoles are out of date. My Galaxy Nexus isn't as fast as the Nexus 4, but it's still supported by Google and by app developers. For that reason, it's not out of date.lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Consoles have been out of date for ages. When I can play the same games on PC at a much higher res with all the bells and whistles means that consoles are out of date. Yundex

Consoles are still faster than most prebuilt PC out there. Deal with it.

[QUOTE="Yundex"][QUOTE="lowe0"] That's a pretty narrow definition. Since when is performance the sole metric by which a platform should be evaluated?lowe0

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Semantic wars starring lowe!lowe0

Someone already described it perfectly.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="Yundex"] Maybe you should stop using car analogies. Or should I just keep feeding the beast? Consider a PC the mustang, and consoles the F-150. I can turn my PC into a "console" with an HDMI cable and a USB controller. So if I could turn my mustang into an F-150 at will, a plain F-150 would be outdated. Or you could address the first point I made in this thread, without using analogies at all.lowe0

[QUOTE="Yundex"][QUOTE="lowe0"] That's a pretty narrow definition. Since when is performance the sole metric by which a platform should be evaluated?lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Yundex"] Maybe you should stop using car analogies. Or should I just keep feeding the beast? Consider a PC the mustang, and consoles the F-150. I can turn my PC into a "console" with an HDMI cable and a USB controller. So if I could turn my mustang into an F-150 at will, a plain F-150 would be outdated. Or you could address the first point I made in this thread, without using analogies at all.Yundex

[QUOTE="Yundex"][QUOTE="lowe0"] A gamepad and an HDMI port do not a console make. As I already said, consider hardware, software, and services as a whole.lowe0

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"] I just dont see next gen any PC games that can compete with what ever devs like Naughty Dog or Guerrilla Games can make for PS4.

KillzoneSnake

Like i said the gap was closer this gen. Last gen when i played PC games like HL2 and you compare them to PS2 games the difference was insane... physics, graphics, resolution, it was another level. Today... lol MW3 :lol: games on PS3 look good. It may not have the best AA or res but they look good, not the difference of playing HL2 on PC then a random PS2 game.PS3 games look amazing, way better than MW3 on PC lol

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxNO3w8c8g

^Killzone destroys your MW3... ;)

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Yundex"] You're right, i'd have to replace my GPU with one restricted to DX9. So how is the hardware not outdated? And don't forget the software advantage of having internet explorer over firefox. And that support for 32GB USB drives, and boot to disk support. How are these things NOT outdated? Can't forget the services of the 360, paying for online connectivity while still eating ads. Revolutionary!Yundex

[QUOTE="Yundex"][QUOTE="lowe0"] Think of it from a use case perspective. On a console, you know what input devices they'll be using, you know they'll probably be on a couch with a TV, you know what online service they'll be using (since there's only one), you know they won't be multitasking (if they need to be interrupted, you can use a modal dialog), and so you can design a more consistent, easier to use interface tailored for a specific set of use cases. Regardless of the underlying hardware, its a completely different design philosophy from the open nature of the PC. In the end, each gamer has to choose which works best for them at any given time.lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Yundex"] Yes, but my point from the beginning has been the hardware itself and the limitations associated with it, not the business models of each platform. Yundex

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

When was this time you're thinking of, when consoles had 3D graphics accelerators and PCs didn't?

lowe0

The TC is probably thinking that the N64 came out prior to the first 3D accelerators on the PC.

The N64 really had some revolutionary graphics for the day. If they only had went with CD-ROM instead of trying to be greedy with cartridges Sony might not be in the gaming industry today.

Also the only thing holding back PC are the market changes in gaming. Publishers have gone multiplat to make as much money as possible but not necessarily to make the best games possible. Also if you think that gaming is the only reason for a powerful PC you are really behind the times technologically. A high end graphics card can pull double and triple duty as a media player and workhorse for conversion apps and graphic arts work.

That point sailed right over your head. Consolites make the argument that PC gamers waste their money on PC's because they don't have any good exclusives. To which my statement applies. If you are only using your PC for gaming you are behind the times technologically because there is so much to do with that power besides gaming. So having muliplats that are designed for consoles and not my superior PC are no big deal to me. I haven't lost anything but there are plenty of games that harness the power of PC so that point is moot anyway.

[QUOTE="Yundex"][QUOTE="lowe0"] The fixed spec for years is inherent to the business model. With consoles, it's a package deal.lowe0

OMG here we go again. So if the Commdore 64 were still getting updates to it's software it would not be out of date? I sure hope you understand that software updates are not the same as hardware updates.

Actually makes sense.

If PC makers would constuct PC's with already powerful specs, then it would be different.

[QUOTE="Yundex"][QUOTE="lowe0"] A gamepad and an HDMI port do not a console make. As I already said, consider hardware, software, and services as a whole.lowe0

How does this show the hardware is not outdated? Yet again you get back into the "Preference" argument. It doesn't matter if I prefer a NES over a PS3. The NES is obviously outdated. The same goes with console hardware. It's really not that difficult yet you continue to argue. Console hardware is outdated. Period. End of story. You can argue about business models and use cases all day long, but still the hardware is from 2007 (or earlier) and it's been surpassed by something newer.