What does PC gaming need to "pwn" consoles?

Let's try to leave out answers like "it already did" and try to look at what the PC would need to give the consoles a run for their money:

- better OS. Windows just plain sucks. Linux is free and far better. Sure, it doesn't support DirectX, but look at what PS3 and Wii deliver under OpenGL for their respective hardware.

- more multiplats. It's discouraging that big multiplat games like L.A. Noire and RDR don't come to the PC platform.

- more standardized hardware. Currently PC gaming consists of a whole lot of different configurations and obviously it's hard to develop for every different PC out there. So what there would need to be is a "rounded-up" configuration that would be seen as a standard. Of course games could still utilize the extra power (or run on worse hardware) but that would be up to the devs. 100% gamepad support is a must too.

- more games that trully take advantage of the PC platform. That doesn't mean just a little supped-up console ports but games that really are much better on the PC platform. If it worked out several years ago it could now too.

- more advertising. Publishers should advertise the PC versions as the best.

- more sequels to classic PC games. I'm talking games like Magic Carpet, Ultima Underword, Discworld and so on. Of course these games could also be for the consoles but the focus should be on the PC versions.

- a standardized online service. Xbox has Live, Sony has PSN but the PC has nothing like that. Maybe Stream comes close but it needs to expand to be comparable.

- much less buggy games, compatibility issues and protection problems. That's really what I think is the biggest problem with PC gaming. Even big PC games like The Witcher are a "buggy mess" when they are released and you have to wait for patches to make the game playlable. I'm sure this turns off many from PC gaming too.

And lastly: the platform needs something to attract the masses to game on it. The Wii has the Wiimote, the 360 has the Kinect and the PS3 has the Move. What does the PC have? I think it needs something like that too if it wants to attract people who aren't really into games.

More accesilbe, as in we don't need to understand every peice of a computer in order to be able to have an unpdatable rig. I will be the first one to admit that I have no idea how a console works... all I know is that it allows me to play fun games.

Here is what it needs:

1. An open platform, one that allows mods and cheaper games through the choice of gaming services such as Steam and many others. This brings me to:

2. The best online. Again, done through multiple services and open platforms and mods, more players, less lag, more games, etc.

3. ALOT more indy and freeware games, and this isn't including the flash ones - those own too.

3. The most AAA/AA game count at GS

4. The most AAA/AAe game count at GS

5. The best graphics. Usually much higher frames per second.

6. The most control perephirals

7. The best backwards compatability

With these 7 things, I beleive PC can truley be better than consoles. It might take a long time to reach all 7 of these goals.

For AMD to push out Llano Fusion faster to get rid of all this Intel crap. Intel is holding back PC gaming from the mass market. Hopefully this forces them to push their crappy IGPs that have trouble playing HD Youtube videos into making something good.

EDIT: Windows doesn't suck. Windows is perfectly fine. No need to push a new OS that'd only drive away customers.

EDIT 2: Also PC sadly has Kinect. It doesn't need an icon as no one company owns it.

The Playstation 3 DOES NOT USE OPEN GL for GAMING!!!!! PS3's Open GL is very very very limited. All games are built ontop of the hardware, little API.

Here is what it needs:

1. An open platform, one that allows mods and cheaper games through the choice of gaming services such as Steam and many others. This brings me to:

2. The best online. Again, done through multiple services and open platforms and mods, more players, less lag, more games, etc.

3. ALOT more indy and freeware games, and this isn't including the flash ones - those own too.

3. The most AAA/AA game count at GS

4. The most AAA/AAe game count at GS

5. The best graphics. Usually much higher frames per second.

6. The most control perephirals

7. The best backwards compatability

With these 7 things, I beleive PC can truley be better than consoles. It might take a long time to reach all 7 of these goals.

Jankarcop

So nameless, you feel the Pc should just become a console? That is what your alluding to (all your points are from that perspective).. Sadly, that will never happen nor should it.. Pc is a open platform and has been for a really long time. Can I ask what your alluding to with this pc needing to "pwn" consoles.. Are you saying consoles "pwn" Pc as of now?

I will just stop pasue and give Jankacorp a Thumps up for his post above.. Sums up everything in a snip.

EDIT: Windows doesn't suck. Windows is perfectly fine. No need to push a new OS that'd only drive away customers.

ChubbyGuy40

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

Its like all they concentrate on is the look and adding more useless garbage instead of making it light, efficient, and easy to use.

Let's try to leave out answers like "it already did" and try to look at what the PC would need to give the consoles a run for their money:

- better OS. Windows just plain sucks. Linux is free and far better. Sure, it doesn't support DirectX, but look at what PS3 and Wii deliver under OpenGL for their respective hardware.

- more multiplats. It's discouraging that big multiplat games like L.A. Noire and RDR don't come to the PC platform.

- more standardized hardware. Currently PC gaming consists of a whole lot of different configurations and obviously it's hard to develop for every different PC out there. So what there would need to be is a "rounded-up" configuration that would be seen as a standard. Of course games could still utilize the extra power (or run on worse hardware) but that would be up to the devs. 100% gamepad support is a must too.

- more games that trully take advantage of the PC platform. That doesn't mean just a little supped-up console ports but games that really are much better on the PC platform. If it worked out several years ago it could now too.

- more advertising. Publishers should advertise the PC versions as the best.

- more sequels to classic PC games. I'm talking games like Magic Carpet, Ultima Underword, Discworld and so on. Of course these games could also be for the consoles but the focus should be on the PC versions.

- a standardized online service. Xbox has Live, Sony has PSN but the PC has nothing like that. Maybe Stream comes close but it needs to expand to be comparable.

- much less buggy games, compatibility issues and protection problems. That's really what I think is the biggest problem with PC gaming. Even big PC games like The Witcher are a "buggy mess" when they are released and you have to wait for patches to make the game playlable. I'm sure this turns off many from PC gaming too.

And lastly: the platform needs something to attract the masses to game on it. The Wii has the Wiimote, the 360 has the Kinect and the PS3 has the Move. What does the PC have? I think it needs something like that too if it wants to attract people who aren't really into games.

nameless12345

I will agree about the OS, multiplats, and sequels to classics, but the others... not so much. I don't want for the "masses" to come to PC. I like that the hardware is somewhat complicated. That keeps the community of PC gaming as a more mature user base.

As for advertising, that would be nice I guess... but it will likely never happen. Sony and MS are going to pay to have the commercials be about their respective console.

I wouldn't want a standerdized online service. Having Windows in its monopoly position is bad enough. Compitition is a great thing. Also, what happened to PSN can never happen to the PC. Dedicated servers FTW.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

EDIT: Windows doesn't suck. Windows is perfectly fine. No need to push a new OS that'd only drive away customers.

Jebus213

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

You might want to do some research on that claim.. I do believe a easy example is that windows 7 runs with less resources then Vista. Defeats that theory.

I dont think anyone whos a PC gamer could give a crap about the public thinking "pc needs to pwn consoles". everyone knows the casuals and 90% of people who play video games go for a console.

I know if I want the best controlls, higher resolution, better graphics, better voice chat, cheaper games, mods, better multuplayer, the list goes on... I will buy all my games on PC.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

EDIT: Windows doesn't suck. Windows is perfectly fine. No need to push a new OS that'd only drive away customers.

jedikevin2

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

You might want to do some research on that claim.. I do believe a easy example is that windows 7 runs with less resources then Vista. Defeats that theory.

But does it really need to use more then 1.2GB of RAM anyway? On idle?

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

Jebus213

You might want to do some research on that claim.. I do believe a easy example is that windows 7 runs with less resources then Vista. Defeats that theory.

But does it really need to use more then 1.2GB of RAM anyway?

You do know its proportionalized to how much Ram you have right? Its actually something Os's such as Ubuntu, Suse, MacOs's and many many unix base kernels have done for years. Windows was actually slow on this aspect till recently as they started to incorporate some aspects other os's have had.

Let's try to leave out answers like "it already did" and try to look at what the PC would need to give the consoles a run for their money:

- better OS. Windows just plain sucks. Linux is free and far better. Sure, it doesn't support DirectX, but look at what PS3 and Wii deliver under OpenGL for their respective hardware.

never had probs with win7

- more multiplats. It's discouraging that big multiplat games like L.A. Noire and RDR don't come to the PC platform.

you cant lose with the PC/PS3 combo, which is what i do

- more standardized hardware. Currently PC gaming consists of a whole lot of different configurations and obviously it's hard to develop for every different PC out there. So what there would need to be is a "rounded-up" configuration that would be seen as a standard. Of course games could still utilize the extra power (or run on worse hardware) but that would be up to the devs. 100% gamepad support is a must too.

so you want PCs to have 5year old hardware like consoles do? gamepads stay on console. nothing beats KB/M but if you must, you can always use a xbox control

- more games that trully take advantage of the PC platform. That doesn't mean just a little supped-up console ports but games that really are much better on the PC platform. If it worked out several years ago it could now too.

crysis, metro, ect. all games take advantage of it. I can put them in a higher resolution, add AA and AF to any game.

- more advertising. Publishers should advertise the PC versions as the best.

ok

- more sequels to ****c PC games. I'm talking games like Magic Carpet, Ultima Underword, Discworld and so on. Of course these games could also be for the consoles but the focus should be on the PC versions.

ok

- a standardized online service. Xbox has Live, Sony has PSN but the PC has nothing like that. Maybe Stream comes close but it needs to expand to be comparable.

its a mix of ventrillo, steam, and gaming websites (for the community) I dont need a service to hold my hand to join a multiplayer game and advertise in my face like XBL or PSN

- much less buggy games, compatibility issues and protection problems. That's really what I think is the biggest problem with PC gaming. Even big PC games like The Witcher are a "buggy mess" when they are released and you have to wait for patches to make the game playlable. I'm sure this turns off many from PC gaming too.

bugs on PC can be fixed. by the devs or mods. Tobad on console games, bugs are permenant. (new vegas)

And lastly: the platform needs something to attract the masses to game on it. The Wii has the Wiimote, the 360 has the Kinect and the PS3 has the Move. What does the PC have? I think it needs something like that too if it wants to attract people who aren't really into games.

i lol'ed.

nameless12345

Here is what it needs:

1. An open platform, one that allows mods and cheaper games through the choice of gaming services such as Steam and many others. This brings me to:

2. The best online. Again, done through multiple services and open platforms and mods, more players, less lag, more games, etc.

3. ALOT more indy and freeware games, and this isn't including the flash ones - those own too.

3. The most AAA/AA game count at GS

4. The most AAA/AAe game count at GS

5. The best graphics. Usually much higher frames per second.

6. The most control perephirals

7. The best backwards compatability

With these 7 things, I beleive PC can truley be better than consoles. It might take a long time to reach all 7 of these goals.

Jankarcop

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

Jebus213

You might want to do some research on that claim.. I do believe a easy example is that windows 7 runs with less resources then Vista. Defeats that theory.

But does it really need to use more then 1.2GB of RAM anyway? On idle?

Maybe. Even with 4.5GB I have more than enough for gaming and multitasking. RAM is so cheap these days that seems like a drop of water in a bucket.

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

Jebus213

You might want to do some research on that claim.. I do believe a easy example is that windows 7 runs with less resources then Vista. Defeats that theory.

But does it really need to use more then 1.2GB of RAM anyway? On idle?

Maybe. Even with 4.5GB I have more than enough for gaming and multitasking. RAM is so cheap these days that seems like a drop of water in a bucket.

I love my consoles but PC gaming is far, far superior as it is. It doesn't need anything to crush consoles.

Let's try to leave out answers like "it already did" and try to look at what the PC would need to give the consoles a run for their money:

- better OS. Windows just plain sucks. Linux is free and far better. Sure, it doesn't support DirectX, but look at what PS3 and Wii deliver under OpenGL for their respective hardware.

- more multiplats. It's discouraging that big multiplat games like L.A. Noire and RDR don't come to the PC platform.

- more standardized hardware. Currently PC gaming consists of a whole lot of different configurations and obviously it's hard to develop for every different PC out there. So what there would need to be is a "rounded-up" configuration that would be seen as a standard. Of course games could still utilize the extra power (or run on worse hardware) but that would be up to the devs. 100% gamepad support is a must too.

- more games that trully take advantage of the PC platform. That doesn't mean just a little supped-up console ports but games that really are much better on the PC platform. If it worked out several years ago it could now too.

- more advertising. Publishers should advertise the PC versions as the best.

- more sequels to classic PC games. I'm talking games like Magic Carpet, Ultima Underword, Discworld and so on. Of course these games could also be for the consoles but the focus should be on the PC versions.

- a standardized online service. Xbox has Live, Sony has PSN but the PC has nothing like that. Maybe Stream comes close but it needs to expand to be comparable.

- much less buggy games, compatibility issues and protection problems. That's really what I think is the biggest problem with PC gaming. Even big PC games like The Witcher are a "buggy mess" when they are released and you have to wait for patches to make the game playlable. I'm sure this turns off many from PC gaming too.

And lastly: the platform needs something to attract the masses to game on it. The Wii has the Wiimote, the 360 has the Kinect and the PS3 has the Move. What does the PC have? I think it needs something like that too if it wants to attract people who aren't really into games.

nameless12345

All I want is native controller support for all games. Then I'll be happy.i5750at4Ghz

Even though I don't use a controller, I'll agree with this as long as it doesn't pull a Witcher 2 and design the whole UI around a controller.

All I want is native controller support for all games. Then I'll be happy.i5750at4Ghz

There are games that are best played with a kb/m. When devs decide to implement controller support sometimes they mess up the UI and the way you control the game for kb/m. That's what TW2 did with its inventory. For action/fighting or platform genres I'm all for controller support though.

pc gaming needs to be cost efficient. to game on a pc you need a mid grade gpu, cpu, 4 gigs of ram min etc etc... sure you COULD assemble the pc yourself and only end up costing $700-$800 (assuming you're plugging into your tv) but thats still far more expensive than consoles. it would be nice if the cardmakers could come down on prices.

obviously pc's are always going to be better as you can't upgrade your console.

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Is there any real reason why Windows needs to use twice the resources with every OS release? The day they make Steam for linux is the day I say good bye to Windows.

Jebus213

You might want to do some research on that claim.. I do believe a easy example is that windows 7 runs with less resources then Vista. Defeats that theory.

But does it really need to use more then 1.2GB of RAM anyway? On idle?

Let's try to leave out answers like "it already did" and try to look at what the PC would need to give the consoles a run for their money:

- better OS. Windows just plain sucks. Linux is free and far better. Sure, it doesn't support DirectX, but look at what PS3 and Wii deliver under OpenGL for their respective hardware.

Win7 is quite lovely, I'd love to use Linux, 'cause i'ts free, but the lack of game support is irritating, also the ati drivers don't seem all that fleshed out... PS3 has official support for OpenGL ES 1.0, but devs tend to code at a lower level than the api to obtain performance

- more multiplats. It's discouraging that big multiplat games like L.A. Noire and RDR don't come to the PC platform.

We have tons... just a few big names remain exclusive, annoying, and R* are pc haters anyway.

- more standardized hardware. Currently PC gaming consists of a whole lot of different configurations and obviously it's hard to develop for every different PC out there. So what there would need to be is a "rounded-up" configuration that would be seen as a standard. Of course games could still utilize the extra power (or run on worse hardware) but that would be up to the devs. 100% gamepad support is a must too.

That's called a 'console', api's were invented 'cause hardware changes constently.

- more games that trully take advantage of the PC platform. That doesn't mean just a little supped-up console ports but games that really are much better on the PC platform. If it worked out several years ago it could now too.

Publisher/dev's fault, they want more money, so they go to the consoles which have a larger gamer install base.

- more advertising. Publishers should advertise the PC versions as the best.

Much less profitible for them, they have no spine, only care about making money

- more sequels to ****c PC games. I'm talking games like Magic Carpet, Ultima Underword, Discworld and so on. Of course these games could also be for the consoles but the focus should be on the PC versions.

Eh, if they want, I don't know of those things, but it's up to devs to make sequels.

- a standardized online service. Xbox has Live, Sony has PSN but the PC has nothing like that. Maybe Stream comes close but it needs to expand to be comparable.

Yes, just what I want, to have a hackable, crashable survice. No, I love my freedom that provides competition and reliability.

- much less buggy games, compatibility issues and protection problems. That's really what I think is the biggest problem with PC gaming. Even big PC games like The Witcher are a "buggy mess" when they are released and you have to wait for patches to make the game playlable. I'm sure this turns off many from PC gaming too.

I've not encountered many bugs on Win7 or compatibilty issues that weren't easy to work around, would love for Linux compatibility though :(

And lastly: the platform needs something to attract the masses to game on it. The Wii has the Wiimote, the 360 has the Kinect and the PS3 has the Move. What does the PC have? I think it needs something like that too if it wants to attract people who aren't really into games.

The mouse, it's a motion control, and every other controller, wheel, flight sticks and gamepads, including the wiimote, 360 gamepad, and sixaxis/ds3

nameless12345

pc gaming needs to be cost efficient. to game on a pc you need a mid grade gpu, cpu, 4 gigs of ram min etc etc... sure you COULD assemble the pc yourself and only end up costing $700-$800 (assuming you're plugging into your tv) but thats still far more expensive than consoles. it would be nice if the cardmakers could come down on prices.

obviously pc's are always going to be better as you can't upgrade your console.

z4twenny

So much random statements here. To game at console specs, your looking far less then 700 dollars FYI... Also, why to cardmakers need to come down on prices? There is a range card at just about every single price range you can imagine... Pc isn't cost efficient? How so? I've built several computers ranging from 300-800 dollars. All of them nicely cost efficient in my opinion. Add in a pc having the ability to do so much and last for a very long time then I would say pcs can be Very cost efficient. Add in backward compatability for a prethara of pc games and not seeing what your talking about.

Nameless making another thread that seems to be out of sync with reality in order to provoke lots of hermit's responses.... this is what the 10th one now? but hey whos keeping count.Birdy09

Actually, its about in the 60's lol.. Just about every saturday you will see a thread like this from him.. Its now a system wars tradition lol.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"]Nameless making another thread that seems to be out of sync with reality in order to provoke lots of hermit's responses.... this is what the 10th one now? but hey whos keeping count.jedikevin2

Actually, its about in the 60's lol.. Just about every saturday you will see a thread like this from him.. Its now a system wars tradition lol.

keep doing what it's doing?

You dont want a PC, you just want a console. Its also funny how you think an unified online its somehow a good thing, specially after what happened to PSN. Dante2710

If Steam continues on as a juggernaut we may end up with a closed platform.

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]You dont want a PC, you just want a console. Its also funny how you think an unified online its somehow a good thing, specially after what happened to PSN. Kiyobear

If Steam continues on as a juggernaut we may end up with a closed platform.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]All I want is native controller support for all games. Then I'll be happy.edidili

There are games that are best played with a kb/m. When devs decide to implement controller support sometimes they mess up the UI and the way you control the game for kb/m. That's what TW2 did with its inventory. For action/fighting or platform genres I'm all for controller support though.

[QUOTE="edidili"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]All I want is native controller support for all games. Then I'll be happy.i5750at4Ghz

There are games that are best played with a kb/m. When devs decide to implement controller support sometimes they mess up the UI and the way you control the game for kb/m. That's what TW2 did with its inventory. For action/fighting or platform genres I'm all for controller support though.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="edidili"]

There are games that are best played with a kb/m. When devs decide to implement controller support sometimes they mess up the UI and the way you control the game for kb/m. That's what TW2 did with its inventory. For action/fighting or platform genres I'm all for controller support though.

Birdy09

[QUOTE="Kiyobear"]

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]You dont want a PC, you just want a console. Its also funny how you think an unified online its somehow a good thing, specially after what happened to PSN. Birdy09

If Steam continues on as a juggernaut we may end up with a closed platform.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="Kiyobear"]

If Steam continues on as a juggernaut we may end up with a closed platform.

lowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Birdy09"] Steam is ridiculously overated here if anything ever was, yes the deals are good but I just use it to buy games, it never offers any other function thats worthwhile. its just a store to me, with a bad UI and a poor feature set.i5750at4Ghz

Consoles feels like one big community, all games connected with each other. Pc games feels all so disconnected, even with steam. Maybe if steam improve some more.ramonnl

No, but I wish I could.

i5750at4Ghz

[QUOTE="ramonnl"]Consoles feels like one big community, all games connected with each other. Pc games feels all so disconnected, even with steam. Maybe if steam improve some more.Inconsistancy

No, but I wish I could.

i5750at4Ghz