I was referring to games like Valve's catalogue and UT3.
I can guarantee you Steam on PC is more important in Valve's eyes then Playstation Network or Xbox Live!....and if and when Valve does bring any official downloadable content to games like TF2, Portal, and the HL2 games....it'll most likely appear on Steam first, or exclusively.
You can guarantee nothing, especially with the PC games market in a continual downward spiral in comparison to the console games market. It's all about money and profits, and if you honestly believe loyalty plays any role whatsoever in Valve's future decisions, you're out of your mind.
Mod "capabilities" in which they have to rely on PC users to bring over....can you really tell me there will be many Ps3 users creating mods on their PS3?
Ah yes, another implication that console owners just aren't "tech-savvy" or interested enough to do such a thing. Please don't bother with the insinuation; it's completely worthless in this day and age. Epic is doing what they're doing for a reason.
Second...."Mod" can mean anything....from slightly altered maps, to little cheats, to simple skins....I'm referring more to total conversions....you know, what CS was the HL, what Red Orchestra was to UT2004....I'd really like to see how those will be possible on PS3, and have my doubts, especially since those are practically a rewrite of the game code.
I'll be asking Rein about this myself in an upcoming interview we're doing. And again, I'm relatively certain they know what they're doing.
Other then the copy protection issue and the activation, I haven't heard of many serious complaints of Bioshock....in fact, from what I've read on some forums, many PC users are surprised how well it runs of mid-range or older hardware.
That's a flat-out lie. Most people do NOT have the capacity with a general PC to play Bioshock, and furthermore, 2K Games has recently apologized for releasing a particularly buggy PC version of the game. ...did you just choose to ignore that? I'm sure they'll fix it with patches, but then again, it seems like most every PC game needs to be fixed with patches.
Again...it depends on the developer.....but in a case like with Valve's games, I'd bet money that the PC version will see downloadable content....both official and unofficial....that the console versions will never see.
Again, do you really think there won't be exclusive content on the Network or Live? Do you have any idea what kind of pull both those online services have right now, especially Live? Clearly, you don't.
You're SEVERLY overestimating the HDTV market penetration, especially for the larger models like 42" and 52" sets. Truth is not everyone has an HDTV, and far fewer have 42" to 52" HDTVs.
I'm not overestimating everything; I report on the numbers every month. I know what they are. My numbers are accurate, and I never once said that "everyone has a HDTV." I said the number of HD owners is ever on the rise, and your argument about a PC monitor vs. a HDTV will continually get more and more irrelevant because of this.
I can make an argument that most people already have a PC....or even when someone goes out and buys a high end gaming PC it's usefullness extends FAR beyond gaming.
Right. And a TV is only good for games. :roll:
These have got to be two of the most false statements I have read in quite awhile.
The cost what was considered a good "gaming" PC (as in capable of running Quake III or Max Payne well) back in 2001 or 2000 was around $2,500.....today a solid gaming PC can be had in the $1,500 range. The prices of capable graphics cards have nearly been halved in the past 5 years with more choices then ever before.
The complete opposite has happened with consoles...with PS3 and Xbox 360 having higher launch prices of pretty much any other major system in over a decade....and also multiple SKUs rather then significant price drops....especially the PS3 with it's outrageously high price.
Good numbers. Did you not add them up so it could look better? Good gaming PC for $1500 (still too low, but whatever). One console...hell, I'll give you both the PS3 and Xbox 360, for about $900. Upgrade required to play the best games for the next 5-8 years for the consoles- none. Zero dollars. Upgrade required for consoles in same time frame- God only knows. Even if it's only a few hundred dollars, it's still far more expensive. Not to mention the fact that many, many PC games have problems console games never have, which gamers these days have absolutely no patience or tolerance for. Yeah, the PS3 has an "outrageously" high price. The 60GB is $500 and the Premium 360 is now $350, which means both are less than 1/3 the price of a "solid gaming PC" and both get far more quality titles in the span of one year. Three times as many, last I checked over at GameRankings. Want me to bring up the numbers of great games (80%+)for consoles in one year compared to the number of great games for PC? You do not want to see those, my friend.
Wow, you made a good point there.
Only you minus the cost of the TV that will benefit those two systems.
one can get a PC, with a monitor capable of HD resolutions, for a $1000 which capable of playing this years games fine which will be FAR more useful for things beyond gaming.
Any particular reason you seem to think a HDTV is absolutely required in order for the games on consoles to be any good or worth playing? What the hell kind of argument is that?
You also forget to mention the hardware capabilities of consoles pretty much remain static for those 5 years....sure, developers learn to exploit the hardware better, but the actual capabilities pretty much remain the same.
If someone buys an 8800 series today and chooses not to upgrade for the next 5 years, they can also enjoy the same visual fidility that these current consoles will be capaple of over the next 5 years....even more so. Someone who bought a 9700 series back in 2002 was perfectly fine playing a majority of games up to 2005 at visuals that were better then Xbox.
See...that's one of the benefits of PC gaming...if you want to, you can improve you gaming experience. PC gaming is about options and choice.....sure, some of those choices come with a cost, but at least its there. You may not enjoy the idea of improving you hardware and sticking with the same thing for 5 years....but other people like it another way.
Here are the words of someone who has virtually no idea what happens with consoles. None. Compare PS2 launch titles to the later titles like God of War II, Final Fantasy XII, MGS 3, GT 4, Okami, etc. Go right ahead. The games may as well be on completely different consoles, they're so visually different. Developers have constantly said, again and again, just how much capability the PS3 has. What, do you really think Killzone 2 will look the same as Resistance? Does Gears of War look the same as Xbox 360 launch titles? Crytek, who is making your precious Crysis for the PC, couldn't possibly be more excited about working with the PS3...what does that tell you? More and more developers have switched from PC to console - or are at least including console - and there's a damn good reason for it.
As of right now, there isn't a thing on the PC that significantly outstrips the best-looking console productions, and games on consoles will only continue to look better. For no extra cost. You want better-looking games in the future on the PC? I'm sure they'll exist, but you're gonna pay. You're so far off-base in your argument, it's not even funny.
Yeah....cause look how honest and accurate Sony has been so far with the PS3...especially with crazy Kens comments.:roll:
Yeah, because after all, Ken has been making all the announcements and claims in 2007. Oh, wait a second...he's not here, anymore. Way to stay current. :roll:
Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know from experience.....if you're a smart shopper, One upgrade, at the most Two...a new graphics card maybe in 3 years, at the earliest 2 years if you're a graphics junkie, and maybe a new stick of RAM for like $60 (the cost of one console game).
....and that graphics card 2 or 3 years from now will actually be able to run the newest high end engines that should be releasing in 3 years at full visual fidelity and effects....will you be able to claim the same for 360 or PS3?
And again...that's IF someone is interested in only running the most taxing graphics at the time...there will still be a wealth of quality games over the next couple of years that will easily be able to run on old hardware, for example Starcraft 2. People are enjoying this years PC releases perfectly fine on hardware from 3 YEARS ago.
And I'm enjoying three generations of games on my PS3. Don't really have any problem, now do I? As for the rest, I've already added up the numbers earlier, which you refuse to do. And you won't, because it completely negates your entire argument. It wouldn't matter if the graphics card cost $1. That's already more expensive, so just accept the facts. Please.
Last time I checked, a Geforce 7950 is an excellent card for DirectX 9 gaming and can run games at the same level as 360 or PS3....which can be had for $179 new. Even a 8800GTS is can be had for $250 and is fully directX 10 compliant.
See above.
First, current PC LCD screens are no more harmful to you eyes than any HDTV, in fact, PC LCD screens arent harmful to the eyes over the long term like old CRTs...so stop making stuff up.
Do some research on the matter, and then maybe you can talk. Until then, don't bother. Glaucoma and those who work on PCs their entire lives go together like peanut butter and jelly. You're wasting my time on this.
Second....No, I don't see how sitting 12 feet from a 42 inch HDTV is any more "advantageous" to sitting 12 inches from a nice 24 - 30 inch high end widescreen LCD monitor.....since they both take up roughly the same field of view given the distance you are from them.
Field of view? Is this the argument you PC elitists are clinging to, now? I'll tell you what, chief- line up any 10 gamers in this country, and ask them if they'd prefer a regular HDTV (even one that's 32" or 37") and an armchair or a PC monitor and a desk chair. Do it as many times as you want. Let me know when the majority chooses the PC option...because hell will have officially frozen over.
I've seen this same argument from you before. You clearly know nothing about consoles and are desperately clinging to phantom PC superiority that evaporated several years ago. There's a reason why gamers are siding with consoles these days, and it's not because they're "stupid" or just "don't know what's good." It's because you can now have a very similar - or even better - experience with a console (or even multiple consoles) for a lesser price. You can try to rationalize and spin things any way you wish, but you're not acknowledging the actual numbers and facts, and that's what matters. You can promote PC gaming until you're blue in the face, but it won't do you any good whatsoever. I hope PC gaming dies out soon because it's a colossal waste of everyone's time and money, and I'm sick of hearing the elitist looking-down-their-nose arguments from PC fans who are still living in 1995.
It's a brave new world and welcome to it. If you want to sit in the past, fine. But I don't want any part of it.
Log in to comment