Why PC gaming will always own cosoles

They might not be able to implement it using the same method, but I am sure that if they spent the same effort as they did to achive that on the PS2, they can do it on a PC. I mean look at Soul Reaver.Datheron

That's my point though; you cannot do it on a PC reliably and expect it to work or have the same effect across diff. hardware configurations. Coupled with the high turnover rate of PC hardware (e.g., upgradeability), there's little incentive for commercial developers to push PC hardware like they do with console hardware.

I think you are making too much out of the different hardwares. While computers dont use exactly the same hardware, the operating system is there to deal with most of this differences nowadays and they are standardisedto some degree. I mean it does not make a noticable difference what brand of motherboard/cpu/memory/harddisk you have when it comes to game programming. The only hardware that would make a difference is graphics card and there are only two chip manufactures when it comes to GPU. You also seem to forget that there is a lot of headroom when it comes to PC programming while in consoles you have to try and come up with new ways to squeeze as much as possible the longer you go into its life while at the start of its life you spend your time tring to learn how to do things on a new hardware.

Also the streaming of levels in GOW is not perfect, I remeber a number of instances when the game froze and a "loading" message appeared on the screen for a few seconds. And I am sure if a PC can handle huge battles like in Rome: Total War and Supreme Commander, streaming of the HD is not an impossible task.

I think it is much more easier to program on the PC, than it is to do so for concoles this days since there is a growing tendency to make console games multi-platform.

That's one way to look at it; another way is simply that PC programming tools are much more refined whereas new tools come with every new console hardware iteration. Porting is certainly not easy either, but in this sense PC's are starting to "copy consoles" with open source multiplatform games that run on Windows/Macs/Linux and companies like id supporting the Mac in the coming future.

There are more Windows/Console multiplats/ports than there are Windows/Macs/Linuxmultiplats/ports.I think you will be seeing even less of Windows/Macs/Linux games as more games become DX10.In terms of PC gaming Mac/Linux gamers arevery miniscule.

This is not exactly a common occurance. Vista is a new OS and of course the chances of things like this happening when a new OS is out is higher than at other times. You jumped onto Vista a bit early on and those who do so must be aware that they will encounter this kinds of problems. Right now there is no reason for gamers to go to Vista and most of them are sticking with XP.

Vista is a beast, certainly, but these instances happen in XP as well - Windows XP SP2, for example, invalidated a bunch of drivers and while most of them worked, a bunch of keyboard and mouse drivers started acting up and you had to use the default one for a while (Logitech is notorious for having crappy drivers, but great mice otherwise =)). Compatibility is always going to be an issue with configurations, I'm afraid.

Again SP2 was a huge update to Windows XP, so some issues were inevitable. I will give you an example in terms of consoles. Take a look at the PS3. The first US/JPN release of PS3 had 100% backward compatibility, but the new ones dont because they are using software emulation.

If console gamers can not handle the complexity of PC gaming then that is their shortcoming not PC gaming. As for PC gamers being elitist, have you been in System Wars lately? There is a post every few minutes from PS3/360 gamers calling WII gamers casuals and saying things like "WII is killing gaming" and "WII is for kids". I think those posts hugley outnumber posts by PC gamers claiming that PC gaming > Console gaming.

There are two responses here.

First, I agree that while PC games tend to be more complex, there's a certain charm to console games, in their simplicity, which is difficult to find in front of a computer. Fun != complexity sometimes, and I've found that after engaging myself in one or two fairly complex games (like recently, Civilizaton IV + Rome: Total War), it's a relief to play some "simple" NBA 2k7 and Guitar Hero II.

Second, you've hit on the point that console gamers vastly outnumber PC gamers, which is why console games sell so much in the first place. PC gamers tend to be older and so are less immature and vocal than console gamers in this regard; my experience has been that they just act smug about their platform of choice, and some of the PC mags I've subscribed to over the years re-enforces that image. Not that I'm excusing the annoying 12-year-olds on this board screaming about their latest systems, but "the kids are doing it too" is a pretty poor excuse.

A few things.

Why is there a general assumtion that all PC gamers are older people while console gamers are children? I started PC gaming at the age of 15/16.

My comment about theWII bashing wasntmeant to be an excuse for what you call PC Elitest, but an observation about how whenever a PC is compared to PS3/360, the argumentof price comes up, butwhen the same people have an argument about the WII, the argument about the WII's lack of power and graphics come into it. I was justmaking an observation.For example you said there arethose that like a simpler game than those offered by PC, but those same people will bash the WII for beingmore simplistic thanthe PS3/360... See what I am tring to say is the Elitesm is not restricted on PC gamers, it is just human nature.Some people just look down on those who havesomething that they view as being lesser. Just like some Ferrariowners will look down on aFieat owner so will some PC gamers look down on console owners. The difference is that there area whole lot more PS3/360owners looking down on WII owners, and they are much more rude/agressive about it, while you will find that most PCowners are not.

I can't believe so many people talk about the "difficulties" of gaming on a PC, yet for some reason we have thousands of 12 year old girls the world over who've never touched a computer playing WoW every night and the game has 9 million subscribers. 9 million. I don't think they're all computer experts.

WoW is on a PC yet you have every random Joe picking it up and playing it with ease, for hours on end. How can that be if a PC is as difficult to work with as some of you make it seem? Even then it takes 2 seconds these days to easily Google the answer to most problems you encounter, if not by simply asking other people you know over the net, or in support forums. I've actually seen many console owners complain that you have to install a game on a PC first before you can play it. :roll: If you can't get past that "barrier", then it'sno wonder you're daunted by the prospect of installing drivers.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]If you're an adult Pcgaming should be better option. You don't monopolize your entertainment center in the home with it, plus you save a lot of time. I mean if I want to play all I have to do is double click on a deskop. While on consoles I have to go to another room,take out the console, take out the pads (if your wife allows you to keep the console with accesories out on the open then you're one lucky guy) turn the console on, wait for it to power up, then search for the game I need, carefuly take out the disk, put it in, wait till it loads and then waste more time on loading them. It sure as hell takes more time overall than going to site and downloading a patch once every month or so.Datheron

Or, you have your own game room and close the door when the kids are running around the house. =)

Seriously though, PC gaming from experience is never as smooth as you guys make it sound. Yes, after you get everything set up, it's just a matter of launching the game, but I find it time consuming to get things set up to begin with; for pretty much every game I own, I've had to either grab/wait for drivers (graphics, audio), wait for a major patch to make things playable/balanced, mess around with the settings (graphics, .ini files) for a few hours to balance resolution and FPS, and occasionally scour forums looking for ways to resolve incompatibilities (mouse/keyboard issues, once the motherboard got involved somehow as well).

I might not mind it being an PC enthusiast, but you have to admit it's not the most friendly platform in the world. Windows Live does a lot of right things in imposing standards on PC games, it just needs to....suck less.

What game requires a net set of drivers? What incompatibilities? I believe it's incompetence that causes problems, due to lack of updating your system, and the fact some people don't look at the system requirements.

You just basically spewed out every PC myth there is. GTFO of this forum. Now.

What game requires a net set of drivers? What incompatibilities? I believe it's incompetence that causes problems, due to lack of updating your system, and the fact some people don't look at the system requirements.

You just basically spewed out every PC myth there is. GTFO of this forum. Now.

WhySoCry

I'll respond to all the other posts in a sec; this one just jumped out at me as being unintentionally ironic. Pray tell, how would I be able to respond to your question if I was to follow your advice of "GTFO"?

So you want examples? nVidia 7900GT's, causing massive rendering problems which weren't resolved for weeks (including 3DMark benchmarks, HL2 and F.E.A.R. for me). Titan Quest, incompatibilities with Logitech mouse drivers which took 9 months to patch. Rainbow 6: Vegas, patched .bin files or a good 6 months for a patch for psuedo-widescreen support. Battlefield 2, early patch caused memory leaks and made game unplayable.

My point? Any piece of new hardware is rough and requires substantial testing, console *or* PC, and added configurations multiply the testing needed (I should know, I'm a software engineer by profession). Waiting for developers to come up with concrete solutions is just not acceptable to some (and no, whining about it on the game's forums isn't going to do anything, kids), and the standardization on consoles makes it a lot easier to produce quality work - in terms of stability and ease of use.

But then where does the "saving resources" go? :)AdrianWerner

Heh - I happen to think the two platforms are close in actual cost, when factoring the cost of big screen TV's and stereo systems and the like along with generally overpriced console accessories (it really does cost $100 for a 360 Wifi dongle).

Of course it's not. But you made it sound like it takes so much time away from you, it might at first, but after a while it's not that much time consuming than console gamingAdrianWerner

Well, I agree that after you set it up, it should run smoothly for you for some time. The question is more whether you'd be willing to put in the initial effort to get everything set up to begin with. Like I said, true "plug and play" has its appeal to many; PC gamers just actively choose to put in that investment b/c of the quality and depth of games on the PC.

I think you are making too much out of the different hardwares. While computers dont use exactly the same hardware, the operating system is there to deal with most of this differences nowadays and they are standardisedto some degree. I mean it does not make a noticable difference what brand of motherboard/cpu/memory/harddisk you have when it comes to game programming. The only hardware that would make a difference is graphics card and there are only two chip manufactures when it comes to GPU. You also seem to forget that there is a lot of headroom when it comes to PC programming while in consoles you have to try and come up with new ways to squeeze as much as possible the longer you go into its life while at the start of its life you spend your time tring to learn how to do things on a new hardware.Philmon

I can't believe so many people talk about the "difficulties" of gaming on a PC, yet for some reason we have thousands of 12 year old girls the world over who've never touched a computer playing WoW every night and the game has 9 million subscribers. 9 million. I don't think they're all computer experts.

WoW is on a PC yet you have every random Joe picking it up and playing it with ease, for hours on end. How can that be if a PC is as difficult to work with as some of you make it seem? Even then it takes 2 seconds these days to easily Google the answer to most problems you encounter, if not by simply asking other people you know over the net, or in support forums. I've actually seen many console owners complain that you have to install a game on a PC first before you can play it. :roll: If you can't get past that "barrier", then it'sno wonder you're daunted by the prospect of installing drivers.

Zeliard9

The simple fact that PC games have much larger support forums filled with frustrated people trying to get their $50 game to work speaks volumes on the difficulty of access.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]If you're an adult Pcgaming should be better option. You don't monopolize your entertainment center in the home with it, plus you save a lot of time. I mean if I want to play all I have to do is double click on a deskop. While on consoles I have to go to another room,take out the console, take out the pads (if your wife allows you to keep the console with accesories out on the open then you're one lucky guy) turn the console on, wait for it to power up, then search for the game I need, carefuly take out the disk, put it in, wait till it loads and then waste more time on loading them. It sure as hell takes more time overall than going to site and downloading a patch once every month or so.Datheron

Or, you have your own game room and close the door when the kids are running around the house. =)

Seriously though, PC gaming from experience is never as smooth as you guys make it sound. Yes, after you get everything set up, it's just a matter of launching the game, but I find it time consuming to get things set up to begin with; for pretty much every game I own, I've had to either grab/wait for drivers (graphics, audio), wait for a major patch to make things playable/balanced, mess around with the settings (graphics, .ini files) for a few hours to balance resolution and FPS, and occasionally scour forums looking for ways to resolve incompatibilities (mouse/keyboard issues, once the motherboard got involved somehow as well).

I might not mind it being an PC enthusiast, but you have to admit it's not the most friendly platform in the world. Windows Live does a lot of right things in imposing standards on PC games, it just needs to....suck less.

Wow, you sure have alot more issues with PC gaming than I do. Why you have to wait on drivers to play a game is beyond me, but that is a problem with you, not the game. Sorry, but your drivers should have already been installed by you. And no waiting needed. Just go to the site that makes the drivers and get them. Seems like you like to make things a hell of alot harder for yourself than you need to.l-_-l

Yea, you'd think that with supposedly monthly driver releases by nVidia that they'd have fixed my issue of playing on a 7900GT in Vista in anything other than full screen native 1900x1200 resolution, forcing me to turn my settings to medium/low on newer games when my card can't handle the high resolutions. You'd think that they would have gotten rid of rendering artifacts in a game as old as CS:Source on said 7900GT. And you would think that the release notes for every set of drivers, detailing the incompatibility issues which were fixed that version as well as list known outstanding issues, would be an indicator that there were problems to begin with.

[QUOTE="Philmon"]I think you are making too much out of the different hardwares. While computers dont use exactly the same hardware, the operating system is there to deal with most of this differences nowadays and they are standardisedto some degree. I mean it does not make a noticable difference what brand of motherboard/cpu/memory/harddisk you have when it comes to game programming. The only hardware that would make a difference is graphics card and there are only two chip manufactures when it comes to GPU. You also seem to forget that there is a lot of headroom when it comes to PC programming while in consoles you have to try and come up with new ways to squeeze as much as possible the longer you go into its life while at the start of its life you spend your time tring to learn how to do things on a new hardware.Datheron

I thought PONG came out first then the computer, also was the MAC the first computer to come out? Anyone? Hermitkermit

I thought PONG came out first then the computer, also was the MAC the first computer to come out? Anyone? Hermitkermit

the first games were all on the computer...think about it.

computers have exsisted for much longer then pong....IBM was founded in 1888.

"computer" is a broad term that applies to a lot of things....the first "computers" are 2000 years old.

Which system has an incredibly small fanbase and has the distiction of it's best selling games often being Zoo Tycoon or the expansions to the said game?

Shall I keep going?

i dunno what a 8800gts is,

my_name_is_ron

But yet you sit here and bash PC gaming:lol:

Which system has an incredibly small fanbase and has the distiction of it's best selling games often being Zoo Tycoon or the expansions to the said game?

Shall I keep going?

Israfel856

right....because 9 million WOW players.....millions of Starcraft fans...and 13 million Steam users...is such a small fanbase.

[QUOTE="Israfel856"]

Which system has an incredibly small fanbase and has the distiction of it's best selling games often being Zoo Tycoon or the expansions to the said game?

Shall I keep going?

cobrax75

right....because 9 million WOW players.....millions of Starcraft fans...and 13 million Steam users...is such a small fanbase.

Compared to the rest of gaming I'd say it's pretty small.

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"]

i dunno what a 8800gts is,

no_submission

But yet you sit here and bash PC gaming:lol:

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Israfel856"]

Which system has an incredibly small fanbase and has the distiction of it's best selling games often being Zoo Tycoon or the expansions to the said game?

Shall I keep going?

Israfel856

right....because 9 million WOW players.....millions of Starcraft fans...and 13 million Steam users...is such a small fanbase.

Compared to the rest of gaming I'd say it's pretty small.

how so?

everything I mentioned isnt even required to be a PC gamer....

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Israfel856"]

Which system has an incredibly small fanbase and has the distiction of it's best selling games often being Zoo Tycoon or the expansions to the said game?

Shall I keep going?

Israfel856

right....because 9 million WOW players.....millions of Starcraft fans...and 13 million Steam users...is such a small fanbase.

Compared to the rest of gaming I'd say it's pretty small.

XBL only has 7 million users......

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

I can't believe so many people talk about the "difficulties" of gaming on a PC, yet for some reason we have thousands of 12 year old girls the world over who've never touched a computer playing WoW every night and the game has 9 million subscribers. 9 million. I don't think they're all computer experts.

WoW is on a PC yet you have every random Joe picking it up and playing it with ease, for hours on end. How can that be if a PC is as difficult to work with as some of you make it seem? Even then it takes 2 seconds these days to easily Google the answer to most problems you encounter, if not by simply asking other people you know over the net, or in support forums. I've actually seen many console owners complain that you have to install a game on a PC first before you can play it. :roll: If you can't get past that "barrier", then it'sno wonder you're daunted by the prospect of installing drivers.

Datheron

The simple fact that PC games have much larger support forums filled with frustrated people trying to get their $50 game to work speaks volumes on the difficulty of access.

Those are usually people who are trying to optimize their game, not that they can't play it. Most casual players won't care about bumping their graphics up to 16x AA and AF or getting better drivers. Sticking a CD inside of your drive, waiting for the autoplay to pop up, and then clicking "install" is something that requires no in-depth computer knowledge and is something that most everyone knows how to do. And generally that's all that's required to play.

Strangely, millions manage to do this without having to spend time in support forums. Such as WoW, which I pointed out has an enormous casual gamer base (though many are no longer really "casual" gamers because of the time-consuming type of game it is, but their computer knowledge likely still is). I think you're giving the regular Joes and Janes too little credit. They're not that dumb, especially not in this day and age, where half of the population is turning into techno-geeks and PCs have been around for a very long time and are used progressively more.

Those are usually people who are trying to optimize their game, not that they can't play it. Most casual players won't care about bumping their graphics up to 16x AA and AF or getting better drivers. Sticking a CD inside of your drive, waiting for the autoplay to pop up, and then clicking "install" is something that requires no in-depth computer knowledge and is something that most everyone knows how to do. And generally that's all that's required to play.Zeliard9

I've give you credit in that games have gotten generally better in the past few years than in the past, where the installer and the default config is usually enough to start a game. Certainly I'm not implying that every game requires an extensive post-install process to get them up-and-running, just that there's enough of them and it happens often enough for it to be annoying and not user friendly.

Strangely, millions manage to do this without having to spend time in support forums. Such as WoW, which I pointed out has an enormous casual gamer base (though many are no longer really "casual" gamers because of the time-consuming type of game it is, but their computer knowledge likely still is). I think you're giving the regular Joes and Janes too little credit. They're not that dumb, especially not in this day and age, where half of the population is turning into techno-geeks and PCs have been around for a very long time and are used progressively more.Zeliard9

Read above; obviously if every game didn't play out of the box PC gaming would be in a lot worse shape than it currently is. Also consider that having 9 million players in WoW is probably the highest PC gaming achievement to date - it's not like you see console games having sold 13 or 14 million needing support forums. From experience, coworkers and clients who depend on PC's to make money (i.e., need them for work, software engineers) have trouble with their PC's from time to time as well. It's not like anybody can read driver code, ya know.

[QUOTE="l-_-l"]Wow, you sure have alot more issues with PC gaming than I do. Why you have to wait on drivers to play a game is beyond me, but that is a problem with you, not the game. Sorry, but your drivers should have already been installed by you. And no waiting needed. Just go to the site that makes the drivers and get them. Seems like you like to make things a hell of alot harder for yourself than you need to.Datheron

Yea, you'd think that with supposedly monthly driver releases by nVidia that they'd have fixed my issue of playing on a 7900GT in Vista in anything other than full screen native 1900x1200 resolution, forcing me to turn my settings to medium/low on newer games when my card can't handle the high resolutions. You'd think that they would have gotten rid of rendering artifacts in a game as old as CS:Source on said 7900GT. And you would think that the release notes for every set of drivers, detailing the incompatibility issues which were fixed that version as well as list known outstanding issues, would be an indicator that there were problems to begin with.

I'm having trouble with drivers too.

Lord of the Rings Online keeps freakin' crashing on my 8600. Grrrr.......

I am not disagreeing with the fact that you can squeese more out of a fixed hardware, but what I am saying is that the PC hardware always advances at such a fast speed that it will already have passed console hardware within 6 months if not at the consoles launch. And you have to remember that it takes a while before the developers can find a way to sqeeze as much as possible from a console hardware, and by that time PC hardware would have advanced so far that the developers can create games that surpass what they can do with that console.

As for problems with new hardware I hardly think that is anything that is restricted to PC. I mean look at the 360, which is still suffering from a high level of failure (and the PS2 before it), and it has been a long time since it has been out. Also look at the problems developerswerehaving (and some are still having ) with programming for the PS3. I hardly think that the difficulties PC game programmers are having with DX10 is any greater than the problems PS3 programmers are/were having.Philmon

Ah, you see what happens when you combine those two points, don't you?

1.) PC hardware upgrades at a rapid pace (the customer, of course, always has a choice of whether to upgrade)
2.) New hardware usually comes with problems

Like I said previously, I view consoles and PC's as very similar as a software + hardware package; the main difference from my perspective is how each deal with standardization and customisibility, and I believe there's definite value in standardized components and ease of use. PC components come out so quickly that they're never (fully) supported for an extended period of time, so they rely on "brute force" by appending more transistors and relying on faster clock speeds and more memory to drive performance: Sony's still supporting its PS2 platform well into its 7th year, whereas nVidia has all but abandoned its 7800/7900GT users w/ the latest drivers focused on the 8800GT/S/X series.

And an unfortunate result of all this hardware upgrading is the physical reality of dealing with so many transistors. GPU makers are the most offensive in this regard; Intel and AMD have figured out that to advance they need to reduce power and be more efficient, but nVidia and ATi seem to continue to think that bigger is better, resulting in SLI configs that require 650W+ PSU's to even run. Kinda sad, if you ask me.

And while the OS does take up some resourses the fact of the matter is that the PC platform can afford to allocate those resourses. One of the reasons that you have not seen a lot of multithread-optimized games is that there is no real need for all that power in gaming right now (the only game I know that is restricted by CPU is Supreme Commander and that is multithread-optimized I belive). However this is changing now with more games starting to implement this into games.Philmon

Not quite. You don't see many multi-threaded-optimized programs in general b/c pretty much all multithreading relies on the CPU scheduler, and the scheduler can't really peek into your code to figure out the best way to split the code to run on multiple processes. What about GPU multithreading? Graphics is known to be a very parallel process, but nVidia/ATi continue to employ a pipelined architecture (i.e., multiple stages for one instruction, each stage has mult. units so they're parallel within that stage of rendering) whereas attempts at parallelizing the entire render - a technique called box rendering, I believe - hasn't yielded any great results and hence has flopped in the marketplace. Surely you can see the application on things like individual unit AI (heck, the 3dMark2007 benchmark showcases that perfectly), if only they had more standard hardware to work on.

Ok, I will give you that standardization does reduce software incompatibility. I was just tring to show that problems like this while more apparent in PCs is not restricted to themPhilmon

Fair enough. One more point I want to make here is that OS changes are very much like hardware refreshes, and the current XP dominance is an exception rather than the norm: Windows 3.1/95/98/ME/XP (along with NT/2000/2003) were all released within 2-3 years of each other and like any hardware upgrade these OS upgrades cause compatibility issues as well. Somebody was telling me the problems I'm having w/ Vista is because "Vista is still new", but they'll come up again in 3 years with Microsoft's new OS (codenamed "7") and has happened frequently in the past as well (I remember when people stayed on Win98 b/c WinXP failed to run a bunch of games pre-SP1, the leap from the Win9x kernel to the WinNT kernel was a big one admittedly).

[QUOTE="Philmon"]I am not disagreeing with the fact that you can squeese more out of a fixed hardware, but what I am saying is that the PC hardware always advances at such a fast speed that it will already have passed console hardware within 6 months if not at the consoles launch. And you have to remember that it takes a while before the developers can find a way to sqeeze as much as possible from a console hardware, and by that time PC hardware would have advanced so far that the developers can create games that surpass what they can do with that console.

As for problems with new hardware I hardly think that is anything that is restricted to PC. I mean look at the 360, which is still suffering from a high level of failure (and the PS2 before it), and it has been a long time since it has been out. Also look at the problems developerswerehaving (and some are still having ) with programming for the PS3. I hardly think that the difficulties PC game programmers are having with DX10 is any greater than the problems PS3 programmers are/were having.Datheron

Ah, you see what happens when you combine those two points, don't you?

1.) PC hardware upgrades at a rapid pace (the customer, of course, always has a choice of whether to upgrade)
2.) New hardware usually comes with problems

Like I said previously, I view consoles and PC's as very similar as a software + hardware package; the main difference from my perspective is how each deal with standardization and customisibility, and I believe there's definite value in standardized components and ease of use. PC components come out so quickly that they're never (fully) supported for an extended period of time, so they rely on "brute force" by appending more transistors and relying on faster clock speeds and more memory to drive performance: Sony's still supporting its PS2 platform well into its 7th year, whereas nVidia has all but abandoned its 7800/7900GT users w/ the latest drivers focused on the 8800GT/S/X series.

And an unfortunate result of all this hardware upgrading is the physical reality of dealing with so many transistors. GPU makers are the most offensive in this regard; Intel and AMD have figured out that to advance they need to reduce power and be more efficient, but nVidia and ATi seem to continue to think that bigger is better, resulting in SLI configs that require 650W+ PSU's to even run. Kinda sad, if you ask me.

I have a 7900GTO andI have had no driver problems with it since I bought it (Then again I have not moved up to Vista). The thing is that the 7800/7900 series have hadstable working drivers for a long time now, it is only with windows Vista that problems arise.

The reason Sony is supporting PS2 is simply because it is still selling (hell it is mostly selling more than the PS3).How long did MS support X-Box, or Nintendo the N64/GC? The PS2was a phenomenal success, and still is and that is the only reason that Sony is supporting it.

Look the fact of the matter is thatmost hardware upgrades will result in either more miniturisation or/and higher power cusumption. Look at the PS3/360 and compare them to PS2/X-Box.They require more power and you can bet the next generation will require even more, that is just the nature of things. The fact that this is more apparent in PC where the rate of hardware upgrade is higher and the fact that users need to be aware of the PSU requirements (where as if you ask most console owners they would have no idea of how much W thier consoles require), does not neget the fact that consoles are also affected by this.

[QUOTE="Philmon"]And while the OS does take up some resourses the fact of the matter is that the PC platform can afford to allocate those resourses. One of the reasons that you have not seen a lot of multithread-optimized games is that there is no real need for all that power in gaming right now (the only game I know that is restricted by CPU is Supreme Commander and that is multithread-optimized I belive). However this is changing now with more games starting to implement this into games.Datheron

Not quite. You don't see many multi-threaded-optimized programs in general b/c pretty much all multithreading relies on the CPU scheduler, and the scheduler can't really peek into your code to figure out the best way to split the code to run on multiple processes. What about GPU multithreading? Graphics is known to be a very parallel process, but nVidia/ATi continue to employ a pipelined architecture (i.e., multiple stages for one instruction, each stage has mult. units so they're parallel within that stage of rendering) whereas attempts at parallelizing the entire render - a technique called box rendering, I believe - hasn't yielded any great results and hence has flopped in the marketplace. Surely you can see the application on things like individual unit AI (heck, the 3dMark2007 benchmark showcases that perfectly), if only they had more standard hardware to work on.

As I have mentioned before, the speed of CPU's has advanced so fast that it has exceeded game requirments. I mean most games out today do not even tax single core processors so why would they go to the time and expence of making them multithread?

As for GPU, while it can be argued which method is better, it is a good thing that both ATi/NVidia have decided to go the same route, because if they had gone different routes then it would have just made it more difficult for game programmers, where they would be forced to choose sides or spend more effort to make the games compatible for both sides. By the way do consoles use multitreading for GPUs?

[QUOTE="Philmon"]Ok, I will give you that standardization does reduce software incompatibility. I was just tring to show that problems like this while more apparent in PCs is not restricted to themDatheron

Fair enough. One more point I want to make here is that OS changes are very much like hardware refreshes, and the current XP dominance is an exception rather than the norm: Windows 3.1/95/98/ME/XP (along with NT/2000/2003) were all released within 2-3 years of each other and like any hardware upgrade these OS upgrades cause compatibility issues as well. Somebody was telling me the problems I'm having w/ Vista is because "Vista is still new", but they'll come up again in 3 years with Microsoft's new OS (codenamed "7") and has happened frequently in the past as well (I remember when people stayed on Win98 b/c WinXP failed to run a bunch of games pre-SP1, the leap from the Win9x kernel to the WinNT kernel was a big one admittedly).

The thing ismost PC gamers know that any new software (especially something as big and complex as an OS) will have bugs in them (this also applies to console games).So why are all these gamers making a jump into Vista so early on, especially those like you that are still using 7800/7900 cards. Vista takes up more resourses and its only advantage, in terms of gaming, DX10 is still in its infancy. Like you mentioned I did not make the jump onto XP until it was stable for gaming and I completly ignored the mess that was ME. I personally will not jump onto Vista until a year and a half after its release at least. I mean this is like people who jumped onto WII or PS3 early on and then complain about the lack of games.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Israfel856"]

Which system has an incredibly small fanbase and has the distiction of it's best selling games often being Zoo Tycoon or the expansions to the said game?

You know WoW's 9 million is only the second biggest MMO user base? First being Lineage (19 or 21 Million) granted mostly asian ... but still.

Then youve got the countless other online games being played that are not on STEAM ect ...

Shall I keep going?

Israfel856

right....because 9 million WOW players.....millions of Starcraft fans...and 13 million Steam users...is such a small fanbase.

Compared to the rest of gaming I'd say it's pretty small.

[QUOTE="WhySoCry"]What game requires a net set of drivers? What incompatibilities? I believe it's incompetence that causes problems, due to lack of updating your system, and the fact some people don't look at the system requirements.

You just basically spewed out every PC myth there is. GTFO of this forum. Now.

Datheron

I'll respond to all the other posts in a sec; this one just jumped out at me as being unintentionally ironic. Pray tell, how would I be able to respond to your question if I was to follow your advice of "GTFO"?

So you want examples? nVidia 7900GT's, causing massive rendering problems which weren't resolved for weeks (including 3DMark benchmarks, HL2 and F.E.A.R. for me). Titan Quest, incompatibilities with Logitech mouse drivers which took 9 months to patch. Rainbow 6: Vegas, patched .bin files or a good 6 months for a patch for psuedo-widescreen support. Battlefield 2, early patch caused memory leaks and made game unplayable.

My point? Any piece of new hardware is rough and requires substantial testing, console *or* PC, and added configurations multiply the testing needed (I should know, I'm a software engineer by profession). Waiting for developers to come up with concrete solutions is just not acceptable to some (and no, whining about it on the game's forums isn't going to do anything, kids), and the standardization on consoles makes it a lot easier to produce quality work - in terms of stability and ease of use.

In that case, I don't know. Since i've never run on any Nvidia cards, nor have I ever encountered any issues with the games you listed. The only game I had SOME issues with was R6:Vegas, but its understandable seeing as how ubisoft can't port.

I have a 7900GTO andI have had no driver problems with it since I bought it (Then again I have not moved up to Vista). The thing is that the 7800/7900 series have hadstable working drivers for a long time now, it is only with windows Vista that problems arise.Philmon

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the 7900GT issues; it was quite a big deal:

Google "7900GT problem"