PC isn't a gen ahead? What a bunch of hypocrites.

What are your standards for "next gen"? Completely enhanced graphics/physics rendering? Higher res HD? 60fps standard as opposed to 30fps? Larger multiplayer playercounts? If a Console came out today with these features would you not consider it next-gen? More importantly, each generation of consoles is more expensive than the last, PS3 was $600 so what will this mean for next gen console prices? Imagine:

Let's say PS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4.

So, would these consoles (if they featured the feature list at the beginning of the post) not be considered next-gen? Yes!!!

Well, PC is ALREADY THERE!!!!! Therefore PC is a generation ahead.

Also, would you rather buy an $800-900 PC that will be up-to-date for 3-5 years? Or wait 6 months for a $800 console that will only be as powerful as PC for maybe 12 months, and cannot be upgraded afterwards.

There is so much hypocrisy over the "PC isn't next gen argument". Maybe somebody will argue that PC isn't a gen ahead because it shares games with consoles via multiplats, well, when Xbox 360 released many games, especially sports games, also had PS2 and Xbox 1 versions while also being on 360, does that mean it wasn't next-gen compared to the older systems? NO!!

Stop using hypocrisy and misinformation to bash PC, its depressing actually.

PS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4.

Stalkerfieldsis

Wat.

This kind of behavior makes me ashamed to call myself a PC gamer.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

PS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4.

Wasdie

Wat.

This kind of behavior makes me ashamed to call myself a PC gamer.

My bad, that was supposed to be a hypothetical statement. I edited it to :

" Lets sayPS4 and XBX720 were announced to release in six months, $700 for the 720, $800 for the PS4."

Couldn't you reply to the topic that was created on this like 2 days ago? Or are you just in it for the attention?

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

What is this, I don't even...

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

nameless12345

(Edited out pic)

That's the big problem, truly next gen tech like this exists (That demonstration was done on a PC!!!)

But simply because the consoles are incapable of it, us PC Gamers won't get access to it until it could be released on a next gen console, CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!! It's so disgustingly stupid, Epic should just release a game fully utilizing this tech, and if consolers can't play it yet, too effin' bad!!!

In the end, dev's should cater their games for the platform with the highest capability, whether its a high end PC now, or a next-gen console for the SHORT time its better/equally powerful as a PC, it shouldn't cater to more popular antiquated hardware, because if you make mind blowing games on the best hardware, more people will buy the hardware.

PC is every generation.

Without any objective measurement, it simply comes down to arbitrary limitations.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

Stalkerfieldsis

CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!!

Not really. If there was less piracy on the PC you'd already see such games on the PC.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

nameless12345

CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!!

Not really. If there was less piracy on the PC you'd already see such games on the PC.

No, if dev's didn't make a big deal about it we would have those games. The smaller amounts of piracy + used game sales cause as much of a sales loss on console, but the devs don't abandon console consumers.

You are implying that PC games don't make great sales anymore, they definitely do, especially when you count digital distribution.

If your counter argument is "You PC gamers are all dirty theives and developers should ignore you" than GTFO.

What are your standards for "next gen"?

Stalkerfieldsis

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

nameless12345

CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!!

Not really. If there was less piracy on the PC you'd already see such games on the PC.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

What are your standards for "next gen"?

Heirren

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

nameless12345

CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!!

Not really. If there was less piracy on the PC you'd already see such games on the PC.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

What are your standards for "next gen"?

ShadowDeathX

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

We'll never know. With MW as popular as it is, Arma simply wouldn't sell. Things would be scaled back, but I'd bet it could be done.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

Heirren

We'll never know. With MW as popular as it is, Arma simply wouldn't sell. Things would be scaled back, but I'd bet it could be done.

Anything can be done if you scale back. Same thing happened on consoles last generation with games that crossed over to the platforms. Same thing that happened the generation before that. I mean dang, Cod4 scaled way way back to get on the wii but it was done. Its possible to degrade any game down to fit on any platform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_El3CWkiANc

:lol:

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"] ARMA 3 is a next-generation game then. Game wouldn't be able to work on consoles.jedikevin2

We'll never know. With MW as popular as it is, Arma simply wouldn't sell. Things would be scaled back, but I'd bet it could be done.

Anything can be done if you scale back. Same thing happened on consoles last generation with games that crossed over to the platforms. Same thing that happened the generation before that. I mean dang, Cod4 scaled way way back to get on the wii but it was done. Its possible to degrade any game down to fit on any platform.

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

We'll never know. With MW as popular as it is, Arma simply wouldn't sell. Things would be scaled back, but I'd bet it could be done.

ShadowDeathX

Anything can be done if you scale back. Same thing happened on consoles last generation with games that crossed over to the platforms. Same thing that happened the generation before that. I mean dang, Cod4 scaled way way back to get on the wii but it was done. Its possible to degrade any game down to fit on any platform.

Oh I agree but folks get so lol out of shape when a game is degraded to work on a platform as if this is something special and new. Its been going on for 3 generations of gaming.

I truly think pc gamers will be surprised when they see the visuals of the PS4.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

What are your standards for "next gen"?

Heirren

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

See, consolesw will cheat in that regard, I'll be playing BF3 with 64 players, on a huge map, at 2560x1600, at 60fps. But consoles will scale it back to 700p (lolololol fail, its so bad it hurts my eyes), smaller maps, 24 people, and a barely playable framerate (20-25fps) after playing on a PC. Then console gamers can say, "hey look, we can play the game too, you're not next-gen!!". NO!!! Like I said, at launch 360 and PS3 had gimp versions of some of their games releasing on Xbox and PS2, doesn't mean they weren't next-gen. HYPOCRISY!!!! When the PC is so far ahead that consoles have to scale back High Tech PC games into archaic dog poo to have it run on the hardware, then that game is really "impossible to make on Y console.". If you gimp the game too much, it really isn't the same game.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

What are your standards for "next gen"?

Stalkerfieldsis

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

See, consolesw will cheat in that regard, I'll be playing BF3 with 64 players, on a huge map, at 2560x1600, at 60fps. But consoles will scale it back to 700p (lolololol fail, its so bad it hurts my eyes), smaller maps, 24 people, and a barely playable framerate (20-25fps) after playing on a PC. Then console gamers can say, "hey look, we can play the game too, you're not next-gen!!". NO!!! Like I said, at launch 360 and PS3 had gimp versions of some of their games releasing on Xbox and PS2, doesn't mean they weren't next-gen. HYPOCRISY!!!! When the PC is so far ahead that consoles have to scale back High Tech PC games into archaic dog poo to have it run on the hardware, then that game is really "impossible to make on Y console.". If you gimp the game too much, it really isn't the same game.

There's more to it than visuals. And to be honest, I'd say most of the time it is just console games being scaled UP to pc. I'm not saying they don't look better, but in my eyes it is like comparing RE4 gamecube to RE4 PS3. Sharper, sure, but a very similar game experience.

Also, 700p hurts your eyes? Well, I play a few pc games on my monitor in 1080p, and all three of my consoles go into a 1080p plasma. Guess what? NONE of it hurts my eyes. I've been playing games since the NES. I think you are dilusional or full of $h*+.

Yet you will have to wait untill the next-gen consoles come out for "true" next-gen games:

nameless12345

So that's why epic needed 3 580's to run it, those meshes are almost as dense as crysis 2's jersey barriers.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

Heirren

See, consolesw will cheat in that regard, I'll be playing BF3 with 64 players, on a huge map, at 2560x1600, at 60fps. But consoles will scale it back to 700p (lolololol fail, its so bad it hurts my eyes), smaller maps, 24 people, and a barely playable framerate (20-25fps) after playing on a PC. Then console gamers can say, "hey look, we can play the game too, you're not next-gen!!". NO!!! Like I said, at launch 360 and PS3 had gimp versions of some of their games releasing on Xbox and PS2, doesn't mean they weren't next-gen. HYPOCRISY!!!! When the PC is so far ahead that consoles have to scale back High Tech PC games into archaic dog poo to have it run on the hardware, then that game is really "impossible to make on Y console.". If you gimp the game too much, it really isn't the same game.

There's more to it than visuals. And to be honest, I'd say most of the time it is just console games being scaled UP to pc. I'm not saying they don't look better, but in my eyes it is like comparing RE4 gamecube to RE4 PS3. Sharper, sure, but a very similar game experience.

Also, 700p hurts your eyes? Well, I play a few pc games on my monitor in 1080p, and all three of my consoles go into a 1080p plasma. Guess what? NONE of it hurts my eyes. I've been playing games since the NES. I think you are dilusional or full of $h*+.

Performance is not just visual, a game is far less comfortable and fun if it is choppy and unstable. And yes, multiplats are often less improved on PC. And if you think 1080p HDTV on a console (its still 700p, but on a big TV its just stretched and looks WORSE) and PC 1080p looks the same, you are blind and "full of sh#t". Last game I played at 720p was Far Cry 1 PC in 2004, a year before the next gen, so how can you argue that a platform that far ahead is not a gen ahead?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

CONSOLES ARE HOLDING GAMING BACK!!

kraken2109

Not really. If there was less piracy on the PC you'd already see such games on the PC.

Have you seen the mininum specs required to run some of today's games? :|

Low-end graphics cards "hold back" gaming just as much as consoles do.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Not really. If there was less piracy on the PC you'd already see such games on the PC.

Tikeio

Have you seen the mininum specs required to run some of today's games? :|

Low-end graphics cards "hold back" gaming just as much as consoles do.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

When game X is impossible to make on Y console. Yes I know pc isn't being fully utilized but that is besides the point. Games like BF3--new pc releases--are playable on ps3/360.

Heirren

See, consolesw will cheat in that regard, I'll be playing BF3 with 64 players, on a huge map, at 2560x1600, at 60fps. But consoles will scale it back to 700p (lolololol fail, its so bad it hurts my eyes), smaller maps, 24 people, and a barely playable framerate (20-25fps) after playing on a PC. Then console gamers can say, "hey look, we can play the game too, you're not next-gen!!". NO!!! Like I said, at launch 360 and PS3 had gimp versions of some of their games releasing on Xbox and PS2, doesn't mean they weren't next-gen. HYPOCRISY!!!! When the PC is so far ahead that consoles have to scale back High Tech PC games into archaic dog poo to have it run on the hardware, then that game is really "impossible to make on Y console.". If you gimp the game too much, it really isn't the same game.

There's more to it than visuals. And to be honest, I'd say most of the time it is just console games being scaled UP to pc. I'm not saying they don't look better, but in my eyes it is like comparing RE4 gamecube to RE4 PS3. Sharper, sure, but a very similar game experience.

Also, 700p hurts your eyes? Well, I play a few pc games on my monitor in 1080p, and all three of my consoles go into a 1080p plasma. Guess what? NONE of it hurts my eyes. I've been playing games since the NES. I think you are dilusional or full of $h*+.

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] No, if consoles weren't so out of date you'd see games like that on pc.04dcarraher

Have you seen the mininum specs required to run some of today's games? :|

Low-end graphics cards "hold back" gaming just as much as consoles do.

There is literally a 0% chance the next-gen consoles will be that expensive. $500 tops.DarthBilf

Yeah right, the next gen will be CHEAPER than the previous gen :roll: . HOW NAIVE AND STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE!!!!

PC gaming isn't a gen ahead mostly because they are tied to console lifespans and there aren't any quality PC only developers. Playing the BF games from this gen, I am interested in why DICE ever got any credit for anything. Their games are poorly coded, buggy, sloppy, and all around unimpressive.

I tend to find games by most of these highly praised PC game developers to be laughable. The Wither 2 had terrible gameplay. Half Life 2 had poor gunplay and a boring pace.

There is literally a 0% chance the next-gen consoles will be that expensive. $500 tops.DarthBilf

Xbox 360 was 400$ and had much better hardware than anything at its time of release

So, if xbox 720 is 400$ and has better hardware than anything in 2013, i will be happy

Next gen is Samaritan demo graphics and maybe a bit more too

Not the same graphics as Witcher 2, Gears 3, Crysis 1-2 on xbox 360 with a bit higher resolution and textures

[QUOTE="DarthBilf"]There is literally a 0% chance the next-gen consoles will be that expensive. $500 tops.loosingENDS

Xbox 360 was 400$ and had much better hardware than anything at its time of release

So, if xbox 720 is 400$ and has better hardware than anything in 2013, i will be happy

Next gen is Samaritan demo graphics and maybe a bit more too

Not the same graphics as Witcher 2, Gears 3, Crysis 1-2 on xbox 360 with a bit higher resolution and textures

[QUOTE="DarthBilf"]There is literally a 0% chance the next-gen consoles will be that expensive. $500 tops.Stalkerfieldsis

Yeah right, the next gen will be CHEAPER than the previous gen :roll: . HOW NAIVE AND STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE!!!!

PC gaming isn't a gen ahead mostly because they are tied to console lifespans and there aren't any quality PC only developers. Playing the BF games from this gen, I am interested in why DICE ever got any credit for anything. Their games are poorly coded, buggy, sloppy, and all around unimpressive.

I tend to find games by most of these highly praised PC game developers to be laughable. The Wither 2 had terrible gameplay. Half Life 2 had poor gunplay and a boring pace.

Pug-Nasty

You're an idiot. No wonder you're on the troll list.

[QUOTE="DarthBilf"]There is literally a 0% chance the next-gen consoles will be that expensive. $500 tops.Stalkerfieldsis

Yeah right, the next gen will be CHEAPER than the previous gen :roll: . HOW NAIVE AND STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE!!!!

They will be about same priced, not much cheaper and not much more expensive either

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Tikeio"]

Have you seen the mininum specs required to run some of today's games? :|

Low-end graphics cards "hold back" gaming just as much as consoles do.

lowe0

Wrong AMD APU's at this point in time are as fast or faster then the current consoles. Then AMD APU's by 2013 is expected to be in the 5770/6770 range of performance. Again you are attacking Pc and yet own a pc with 2 GTX 580's :roll: . Anyone that is half way serious in Pc gaming is not going to use low ended parts nor use 4+ year old tech.

PC tech wise is ahead but PC games are not. Its as simple as that really. A few games that have some DX11 features are likely to be the very very base rate of the next gen consoles if they are to be another step forwards towards the high tech side instead of the more obvious casual gamer experince ala' Wii U.

But games like Uncharted 2 are a gen ahead of 360 right :lol:

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Um no Consoles are a big reason why gaming (multiplatform) is held back. Those dev's have to design the base line of the engine/game around the abilities of the console. Games that geared toward Pc are requiring much more powerful gpu's, cpu's memory etc because the Pc assets are being used. While its true that when creating a game you try to target as many people as possible, but since 2009 most Pc oriented games want a Geforce 8 series gpu which are nearly four years old but yet being 3x faster then either of the HD Twins and it shows. From resolutions to AA/AF, detail quality,framerate etc... 04dcarraher

Wrong AMD APU's at this point in time are as fast or faster then the current consoles. Then AMD APU's by 2013 is expected to be in the 5770/6770 range of performance. Again you are attacking Pc and yet own a pc with 2 GTX 580's :roll: . Anyone that is half way serious in Pc gaming is not going to use low ended parts nor use 4+ year old tech.

Of course PC is a gen ahead. Actually, it's been a gen ahead for the last 3 years.

TC, don't waste time defending this issue. Those who have a gaming PC already know it, and those that only play on consoles don't want to know it.