The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

bjj hero:
I really liked your post, well written, no ranting and you weren't patronising.

Yeah, it was too long, had to cut out the ranting. One guy said that next-gen consoles were gonna bring a new age of innovation, then he cited a bunch of games that started out as massive PC hits. Grrrr....

I really enjoyed my experiences in PC gaming, and I feel like others should at the very least should drop any prejudices they might have about pc's, there's good experiences to be had, and I'm happy to take a second and share what I know. To be perfectly honest; whenever I meet groups of other PC gamers, I tend to be the dumbest one in the group, so that makes it pretty tough to act like an elitist. I've met alot of guys who would much rather talk down to somebody and act superior than actually teach them about these sorts of things, they will spend hours arguing about why PC's are so much better but they won't spend 30 seconds to help somebody enjoy what they enjoy, or even help them fix a problem, its pretty shameful.

Personally I have a family, 5 year old son, wife mortgage and work full time and then some.

Lol if you have kids and a real life and you still want to mix it up with some CoD, I think that's about as "core" as it gets. Maybe when your son is a bit older you and him could play some multiplayer minecraft! If you do get a laptop, all you have to buy is two minecraft accounts for $26 each, it's one of the best games I've played and it runs pretty well on low-end machines.

That really is the best part about PC gaming, people are still making fun games that don't require super-expensive hardware to enjoy.

Not sure what you'll have to pay if you live in another country, and we switched back and forth between canadian dollars and pounds, so my prices may be off by quite a bit.

Holythirteen:

I really enjoyed my experiences in PC gaming, and I feel like others should at the very least should drop any prejudices they might have about pc's, there's good experiences to be had, and I'm happy to take a second and share what I know. To be perfectly honest; whenever I meet groups of other PC gamers, I tend to be the dumbest one in the group, so that makes it pretty tough to act like an elitist. I've met alot of guys who would much rather talk down to somebody and act superior than actually teach them about these sorts of things, they will spend hours arguing about why PC's are so much better but they won't spend 30 seconds to help somebody enjoy what they enjoy, or even help them fix a problem, its pretty shameful.

That's actually one of the reasons I haven't switched to PC. Besides the fact that putting together a good rig can be pretty expensive, I'm somewhat intimidated as a lifelong console gamer. Not by ridicule or anything but by the fact that I've never played PC before so I don't know what pieces to buy, how to identify them, where they go in the case, ANYTHING. You could give me the perfect pieces to a rig, I will not know what they are or where they go. I feel like eventually, I will make that switch, and it's going to be quite the learning curve for me. And it would be nice to find that person willing to help me put together a rig instead of just
"Lol, look at the contard finally coming to his senses."
I'll still most likely use a controller too. Like I said, lifelong console gamer. I played a PC at a friends house, the mouse and keyboard are so uncomfortable in my hands, I simply can't use them.

torno:

Holythirteen:

I really enjoyed my experiences in PC gaming, and I feel like others should at the very least should drop any prejudices they might have about pc's, there's good experiences to be had, and I'm happy to take a second and share what I know. To be perfectly honest; whenever I meet groups of other PC gamers, I tend to be the dumbest one in the group, so that makes it pretty tough to act like an elitist. I've met alot of guys who would much rather talk down to somebody and act superior than actually teach them about these sorts of things, they will spend hours arguing about why PC's are so much better but they won't spend 30 seconds to help somebody enjoy what they enjoy, or even help them fix a problem, its pretty shameful.

That's actually one of the reasons I haven't switched to PC. Besides the fact that putting together a good rig can be pretty expensive, I'm somewhat intimidated as a lifelong console gamer. Not by ridicule or anything but by the fact that I've never played PC before so I don't know what pieces to buy, how to identify them, where they go in the case, ANYTHING. You could give me the perfect pieces to a rig, I will not know what they are or where they go. I feel like eventually, I will make that switch, and it's going to be quite the learning curve for me. And it would be nice to find that person willing to help me put together a rig instead of just
"Lol, look at the contard finally coming to his senses."
I'll still most likely use a controller too. Like I said, lifelong console gamer. I played a PC at a friends house, the mouse and keyboard are so uncomfortable in my hands, I simply can't use them.

I built my first gaming PC about 6 months ago (been a lifelong console gamer myself (since NES)). You can find some good PC building videos on YouTube. The ones I remember viewing came from newegg. It was a pretty simple process. Lots of it is looking at a component and looking for where it fits. The hardest part was figuring out how to organize the cables to maximize airflow.

worst thing that happened was I dropped my CPU on the ground. Still works fine. Components aren't super fragile, though I wouldn't recommend dropping them.

since building it I've helped 2 people build their own gaming computers. We all when through that phase of thinking it was too complicated, but once you get over that, building the PC isn't that complicated at all.

I also got a 360 controller since I am used to the controller though I was gaming with kb/m for a while and it wasn't the worst experience.

my friends and I made the jump because we were noticing that the current Gen were crap PCs. Now that we know the specs on ps4 and xb1 we can say our rigs are safely within those ranges. All of us are running quad core i5s, 8gb ram minimum (ddr3), video card with at least 1gb gddr5 ram, I'm the only one without an ssd. Sure we don't have all of the fancy features, but we got backwards compatibility, can run the games at presumably similar levels

Lightknight:
There's a reason why the pc version of Skyrim was a 2GB RAM minimum requirement and it isn't just because of the ps3/360 holding it back as it certainly scaled up.

That is, 2 GB if you want to play skyrim with 0 mods.
If a PC gamer does that, they are doing it wrong.

Oh, oh, did i mention that there's a mod on the nexus that makes the 2 GB restriction go up to 4GB?
And that we got the HD textures AND the unnoficial patch AND the performace bosts AND ENBs ?

I always said this to my friends and will say again.
Playing any Bethesda game on consoles is and always will be a bad deal.

Very well put indeed. I particularly liked the paragraph about "Bertha", as it mirrors my own concerns. Not giving consoles backwards-compatibility is great advertising for computers.

Sony has a decent excuse for lack of BC. A good number of developers didn't like the Cell processor they used In the PS3. They had no choice but to dump it.

As for PCs, well BC isn't guaranteed. The software environment changes. The hardware changes. Many old games need patching, or even outright emulation of its original runtime environment, to work right.

carnege4:

Lightknight:
There's a reason why the pc version of Skyrim was a 2GB RAM minimum requirement and it isn't just because of the ps3/360 holding it back as it certainly scaled up.

That is, 2 GB if you want to play skyrim with 0 mods.
If a PC gamer does that, they are doing it wrong.

Oh, oh, did i mention that there's a mod on the nexus that makes the 2 GB restriction go up to 4GB?
And that we got the HD textures AND the unnoficial patch AND the performace bosts AND ENBs ?

I always said this to my friends and will say again.
Playing any Bethesda game on consoles is and always will be a bad deal.

I don't know which of my posts you quoted so I'm not 100% on my intention with it out of context, but I assume that my point was to include the large number of computer gamers that are still at 2GB RAM. The norm is not 8GB and won't be for some time because the normal purchase right now is still 4GB. Not only that, but if a game can be scaled back to 2GB without any problem then there's not as much motivation to arbitrarily force the 4GB mark if that weeds out qualified consumers.

Skyrim is actually the reason I built a pc. It's amazing and I very much prefer it to my ps3 experience of the game.

Holythirteen:
Lol if you have kids and a real life and you still want to mix it up with some CoD, I think that's about as "core" as it gets. Maybe when your son is a bit older you and him could play some multiplayer minecraft! If you do get a laptop, all you have to buy is two minecraft accounts for $26 each, it's one of the best games I've played and it runs pretty well on low-end machines.

That really is the best part about PC gaming, people are still making fun games that don't require super-expensive hardware to enjoy.

Not sure what you'll have to pay if you live in another country, and we switched back and forth between canadian dollars and pounds, so my prices may be off by quite a bit.

Cheers for the vote of confidence. He has the makings of a gamer. At 5 (this weekend) he can already do quarter circle fireball style special moves on streetfighterIV. Charge moves are still beyond him though.

I used to be a PC gamer, I used to play quake 2 team deathmatch mods over a 56k modem. You had to lead moving targets by about 2-3" on the monitor to allow for ping. When hes a bit older Ill get him a tower but 5 is a little early. My main worry (it must be on the same level as 3rd world debt) is that youngsters arent learning how to use a mouse. Everything is touch screen or controller. Cant help our FPS gamers of the future...

Ill stop while im waaaaaaaaaayyy off topic.

OT: I share Mr Croshaws indifference at the upcoming consoles. Ive seen nothing that makes me think I need one of those.

Yellowbeard:

Doom972:
How many PC gamers actually continuously upgrade their machine? It's expensive and pointless. I'm a PC gamer and have friends who are also PC gamers and I never witnessed this phenomenon.

I agree. A good $1000 rig will last for years with, at most, a new video card and an extra hard drive.

The only upgrading I've done to my PC is replacing its original SSD with a larger, more reliable traditional hard drive (and yes, I will count this as an upgrade until the reliability and size of SSDs is much, much improved).

It's been a long, long time since I've owned a console. And honestly I don't think I'd buy one now, ever, for one simple reason: "console exclusives" of interesting titles are so common that you'd have to hitch yourself to one format and hope that, if you bought an X-Box, the game you wanted didn't come out on PS4. Or vice versa. I remember having this problem with the Sega Megadrive not playing Mario games... haven't we progressed at all since then?

Zombie_Moogle:
A few months a go, I bought a new video card. It'll run new games on full spec without a hiccup & only cost about $200

I'm really starting to question why exactly I should get any console, cuz it seem like the costs that once reserved PC gaming for the elite is actually cheaper than game consoles (granted, my PC is above average to start with)

Oh I dunno, I can get a pretty reasonable PC for $600 (that's slightly more than a new console). Assuming I already have a mouse & keyboard, headphones and a comfortable chair to sit in.

Luckily, I have got the fat PS3 that plays PS2 and PSOne games, but I actually end up playing them on my PC because I like the Mouse & Keyboard controls better than the GamePad (not always, but sometimes). On that note, I play most of my GameCube games on the PC as well ... I actually went about transferring my PS3 library to PC over the last weekend ... Well, considering I don't like any of the new-gen consoles, maybe PC will be the way to go for most, to avoid backwards compatibility issues.

...I perceived at the time to be an elitist attitude among a certain kind of PC gamer. People who invest in expensive gaming PCs and continually spend money to make sure the tech in their brightly-lit tower cases is up to date. Who actually prefer games that are temperamental to get running and that have complicated keyboard interfaces...

Key phrase here, I suppose, is certain kind of PC gamer. I've been a PC gamer since before Wing Commander (One!) and Day of the Tentacle. Most of my PC boxes were unlit except for a small power spot and a Hard-drive activity spot. They worked a lot like the Millennium Falcon in that they flew (for their time) but you had to pound on their side every once in a while to reseat all the expansion cards. (This was long before onboard peripherals like IDE ports or --hah!-- sound cards.)

And part of the problem I have with consoles is the lack of a general practice of allowing one to customize their control schemes (which is the case with almost every game on the PC). It's worse in that the controls are inconsistent between games, whereas on the PC I can make them consistent (and as a left-handed player, I have to customize them anyway).

Granted, a number of indie games don't have customizable controls, but these are often side-scrollers with very few controls anyway, and there's always keyboard binding software like AutoHotkey.

238U

I, too, want to wear the prettiest hats

Lightknight:

Eacaraxe:
Yes, yes it is. You can have all the processing power and bandwidth in the world, but if you don't have enough physical memory to load and contain game assets, your game won't run well. You'll be lucky if it runs, especially when your much-flaunted processors start having to dedicate cycles to continually loading, unloading, and scaling assets, and caching, because of limited memory. And, by far the most important thing when building a system that ages well is to overbuild when it comes to system memory. I've dealt with way too many low-end and mid-range, and upgraded, way too many times to have any illusion otherwise.

Dollars to donuts, Microsoft and Sony are banking on their processors' power and memory bandwidth to load and unload assets only as necessary -- because that worked out so well in the long run with the 360 and PS3.

You're talking about RAM that is not only 16 times more than the current generation but also significantly faster where the PS4 is concerned. The RAM was constrictive for the ps3 but not nearly so constrictive as the rediculous asset categories of the proprietary cpu. If you recall Skyrim bloating to the point of unplayability on the ps3, then you'll recall that the issue was those asset categories getting too bloated and not anything regarding RAM.
...
Though it's important to note that all of the PS4's 8GB RAM is GDDR5. I wonder how much of a difference that may make. We also still don't know that much about the CPU or GPU aside from some very basic stats. With the past decade or so of games being made for 512MBs of RAM on consoles and 2GB minimum reqs on pcs, do you honestly believe that games will instantly jump to 8GBs minimums? Especially on consoles that optimize bandwidth between components at a significantly higher rate than pcs are capable of?

In fairness to the PS3, the engine and save structure for, well, ALL of Bethesda's games is utter fucking shite. Hoenstly I'm surprised that they were even able to get Skyrim and FNV working on the consoles at all given how badly the engine handles objects.

As for memory issues, you're not really going to see the 2 gig min RAM go away until 64bit comps are much more widespread. So another 5 years or so. In any case, long before the 8 gig RAM limit becomes a problem the vid memory will restrict what the games can do.

Sticky:
As much as I like glorious PC gaming mustard race, I've recently convinced myself to use the money I set aside for next-gen consoles to instead buy a 3ds and a bunch of games for it. I really don't see myself regretting the purchase anytime soon, especially as E3 comes closer and we prepare ourselves for the looming next-gen apocalypse.

Oh, you don't know why it's called the Mustard race? Because consoles can't Ketchup. I'll show myself out.

Worst(best) pun I've heard all day. I think I'm just going to abuse that in any forum I go that spews around the master race nonsense.

Signa:

LordTerminal:

Ultratwinkie:

A good PC is about 700$ now. It blows consoles away.

A PC on the level of the next gen consoles is 500$ max.

Consoles are not the bargains they once were.

A WiiU costs $250. A PS3 costs $250. A 3DS costs $180. You're not convincing me. If anything, you've proven me right that gaming PCs are expensive. I'm not paying that.

So you got the systems cheap. Good for you. What are you going to do with it once you have it? Play games on it straight out of the box, right?

Wrong, you need to buy those too. When games on the 3DS go for a generous $35-$40 and the rest of the consoles $60, that's going to add up FAST over the $5 you could be spending on Steam sales. I'm not going to dig up the math again, but last I checked, it took something of an average of 11 games to make up the difference, depending on the system. That was without counting extra peripherals, or Xbox LIVE subscriptions.

You're not wrong that console gaming can be cheap, but don't think you're getting away scott-free. It's the exact same scam that razor and printer companies pull: sell the base cheap, and then lock the customer into buying the overpriced accessories. Those schemes still work because there is enough value in it for the customer, but when you get down to the dollar-for-dollar matching of another option, you will find you aren't doing as well as you could or should. Hell, PC gaming very well could be more expensive overall, but as most people in this thread have expressed, the quality of the experience is higher as well. That 10% higher price becomes at least a 15% better expereince (pulling numbers from my ass).

The games on Steam only sell for that price because they're cheap indie games or some similar situation. That's good for small time developers and all but it still doesn't change the fact that those can only last so long.

And not everything good on consoles is also on Steam for cheaper either.

LordTerminal:

Signa:

LordTerminal:

A WiiU costs $250. A PS3 costs $250. A 3DS costs $180. You're not convincing me. If anything, you've proven me right that gaming PCs are expensive. I'm not paying that.

So you got the systems cheap. Good for you. What are you going to do with it once you have it? Play games on it straight out of the box, right?

Wrong, you need to buy those too. When games on the 3DS go for a generous $35-$40 and the rest of the consoles $60, that's going to add up FAST over the $5 you could be spending on Steam sales. I'm not going to dig up the math again, but last I checked, it took something of an average of 11 games to make up the difference, depending on the system. That was without counting extra peripherals, or Xbox LIVE subscriptions.

You're not wrong that console gaming can be cheap, but don't think you're getting away scott-free. It's the exact same scam that razor and printer companies pull: sell the base cheap, and then lock the customer into buying the overpriced accessories. Those schemes still work because there is enough value in it for the customer, but when you get down to the dollar-for-dollar matching of another option, you will find you aren't doing as well as you could or should. Hell, PC gaming very well could be more expensive overall, but as most people in this thread have expressed, the quality of the experience is higher as well. That 10% higher price becomes at least a 15% better expereince (pulling numbers from my ass).

The games on Steam only sell for that price because they're cheap indie games or some similar situation. That's good for small time developers and all but it still doesn't change the fact that those can only last so long.

And not everything good on consoles is also on Steam for cheaper either.

That answer is a cop-out and you know it. First off, games that are on consoles and Steam are that cheap. Alan Wake is just $3 this weekend, and DMC has dropped to $30 for the time being. Arguing that PC gaming is a poor choice based on exclusives is weak too, because that argument can be made for any other single system as well. I'm not telling you that you're wrong for wanting a WiiU, PS3 or 3DS (especially a 3DS as that fills a different market), but none of your reasons are actually reasons; they are excuses.

exclusives

image

Yathzee's vitriol toward backwards compatibility isn't unwarranted, but who cares about B.C when all that people ever complain about is the monotony of titles in distribution -- and how all of them mostly play the same.

image

If SONY smashes the competition with a plethora of interesting and epic Playstation 4 exclusives, then I will make a purchase in 2014.

Current Gen

Exclusive titles often offer the complete package in terms of what a dynamic and ambitious studio that is flooded with $ can create. Uncharted has few rivals in not only environmental presentation -- very few other titles have more lush and diverse environments -- but in the story drafting, and level design. Uncharted 2 is so well developed that it has no interruptive loading screen! Load up your save and play it till the end!

image

Last of Us is the culmination of 7+ years of engine development by NaughtyDog Studios; and the critics have not only raved about it's gorgeous backgrounds, enemy types and characters, but also how tense and stunningly fearful the game-play is.

image

SONY also loves to spend $ on experimental projects like Fumito Ueda's beloved TRICO series, Quantum Dream's Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls, and many other smaller indie projects. These games really push the envelope in stories can be told in this interactive medium.

PC = Jack of All Trades, but Master of Nothing... Recent

(Except MMO's)

image

They have an entire history of titles; but how often are you going to play all 400+ titles that are easy to download -- and how good do any of those older games look on a 45" TV screen? PC might have prettier RECENT titles that get a port, but how difficult are they to actually acquire i.e Windows Live Account, Amazon Account, Steam Account, Origin Account; and sometimes three of these are needed depending on the $5 sale you're trying to take advantage -- that's what turned me off.

What PC doesn't get are the big-budget experimental titles that are flagships for the next generation of titles. If you are a casual or core gamer, and want the most recent quality work, then it's going to be console, no argument.

Example you ask?

PC gets an excellent Tomb Raider port, and which has its foundation in Uncharted cinematic style and play-mechanics.

-- Pictures Have Links --

Kind of interesting that the biggest turnoff to getting into PC gaming, in the form of self-righteous arseholes posting in this thread, are achieving the opposite of what you'd presume they want.

Regardless of whether the PC system is better or not, the smug attitudes often associated with it are evidently still alive and well.

Don't really see how consoles are "losing their strengths".

It's still buy console, plug into TV, put game in, play.

Occasionally you got to press a few buttons when prompted to update the OS. But that's it.

It not like PC games where you have to read the box, check the specs, update drivers, troubleshoot crap when the game for some reason doesn't agree with your system because the developers missed out on a bug that only affects certain hardware configs, the driver manufacturer messed up with the latest drivers or even just MS dropping the ball when it came to one of their updates and unintentionally broke something, by googling to see if other players have the same issue you do and if they have a fix.

What surprised me the most in Yahtzee's report, is there are indeed some exalted types which took the "master race" pun seriously. I mean, the joke's on them right? Ah, I miss the times when the C64 vs NES, and Genesis vs SNES console wars were supposed to be played exclusively by primary schoolers.

lacktheknack:

Hyakunin Isshu:

lacktheknack:

1. You kind of utterly failed to get that point across in the first point. In fact, you berated him for being "wrong on every point". If you say he's wrong on every point, and ALSO that he's made it into a two-sided issue... then doesn't that mean that you're ALSO making it a two-sided issue, just from the other side?

2. It's understandable if a console iteration changes absolutely EVERYTHING, so it can't be backward-compatible. (Where do you jam the Mario 64 cartridge in a Gamecube?) However, when the Gamecube gave way to the Wii, even though the controller, hardware, software and much else changed, it still took the same input (tiny disc) and lo and behold, it was backwards compatible. However, the Xbox 360 -> Xbox 1 and PS3 -> PS4 changes only hardware and software. There's no bloody reason they can't have a simple architecture emulator on it to run the old media (I have several emulators OPEN right now, they're common and not excessively hard to make). NONE.

As for X-COM, lrn2DosBox. Seriously. If you buy X-COM from gog.com, all they give you is an exact copy of the original physical copy wrapped up with a DosBox emulator.

Here, it's right here: http://www.dosbox.com/

It requires a bit of experimentation, but that's the one downside to it being free (and if you're of a certain disposition, getting the game working is fun and rewarding in and of itself).

3. It's not a new thing, but it still sucks, especially because there's no bloody reason for it. I understand if I play FFVII, and find out that I have to play the first one on an NES (you don't anymore, by the way, you can get it on your phone). However, imagine if you bought a sequel on a PC that ran Windows 7, and found out that the first game would ONLY run on Windows XP, despite not actually relying on XP-specific features. This would be annoying enough. What makes it worse is that 64 bit Windows 7 -> 32 bit Windows XP emulators exist (I have one), but they won't do an Xbox One -> Xbox 360 emulator.

This leaves the question hanging: WHY NOT?

4. Just to show you how utterly lost you are, Half Life 2 WAS last-gen.

Furthermore, what's so special about games like Portal? Portal used the idea of "set two locations, touch one, teleport to the other". This was based off a pretty crappy student project. Furthermore, there's a flash game based on Portal, which is the technological equivalent of an early PS1. They didn't need the Xbox hardware they used, and they most certainly didn't need the Xbox 360/PS3 hardware they used to add the various gels and extra character they added to Portal 2.

Also, there's nothing inherently excellent about your other examples that are exclusive to this gen. Red Faction's first game, for instance, was released in 2001 on early PS2 hardware. The idea of "alter the landscape" was already in effect. Dead Rising just uses lots of NPCs and creative weaponizing that isn't inherent to the hardware. Every cool weapon combo or use was programmed in individually, which is how it's been done since video game characters began picking up items. And while newer hardware was needed to allow for higher-res models in large groups, it's hardly a new idea.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown is NOT a new idea. You damn well know this, seeing how you were saying that you can't play the first X-COM mere paragraphs ago.

Etc, etc.

You wanna know what kind of cool new ideas the new consoles from Sony and Microsoft CAN achieve? They can do better graphics and AI. That's... more or less all. And the AI isn't even all that useful outside of 4X, RTS and simulation games, which the consoles aren't going to have, because they haven't changed the controller that was stopping those genres in the first place.

Look, I'm all for new consoles that do cool things, but currently, what Xbox One is offering me is a platter of social networking integrated features, a cable box, and a permanent spy camera with none of the good stuff that you seem to think it will manage. There's currently NO reason to buy one any more than I would buy a new cable box with the words "CONTAINS UNCONTROLLABLE CAMERA FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE" plastered on it. Sony doesn't seem to have any cool new things up the chute either.

At least the Wii U is backwards compatible with the Wii and is actually trying a REAL attempt at innovation, but at this point, Yahtzee's pretty damn justified in thinking that PC gaming is an avenue he should try out again.

(sigh) Oy vey!

Look, You haven't changed my mind, even a bit.

What I said wasn't clear enough, but it still stands. Like for one (just one) example, Half-life 2 can in some way run on the "Last-Gen", but *only* on the first xbox. It can NOT run on the Gamecube, and it can NOT run on the PS2. And the graphics was A *lot* less better, and it even had frame-rate problems.

Now I can go over everything else, but I don't want to. Maybe I'll come back after a few days, but I think it's pointless now. Question is, are you still willing to talk then? Because if not,then this will end now, and I have to say good bye.

No, I'm willing to talk later.

But before you come back, make sure you're not mixing up "cool new ideas" with "prettier graphics".

(sigh) Sorry, but I don't have the will right now to give you a full reply. Maybe I'll come back in a week, or maybe a month, or never - I don't know.

But I think you need to see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M

It is about Used Games, and how very, very bad it is for all console Game-Makers. In fact, it makes Ben Croshaw look like a stupid baka for thinking Used Games aren't hurting developers, or thinking: 'it's not that bad of a thing'.

In fact, It changed my mind on the topic. Please see the whole thing before replying.
And it the link doesn't work, then look for "The Devil's Halibut - Used Games" on youtube, It's by TotalHalibut.

Hyakunin Isshu:

lacktheknack:

Hyakunin Isshu:

(sigh) Oy vey!

Look, You haven't changed my mind, even a bit.

What I said wasn't clear enough, but it still stands. Like for one (just one) example, Half-life 2 can in some way run on the "Last-Gen", but *only* on the first xbox. It can NOT run on the Gamecube, and it can NOT run on the PS2. And the graphics was A *lot* less better, and it even had frame-rate problems.

Now I can go over everything else, but I don't want to. Maybe I'll come back after a few days, but I think it's pointless now. Question is, are you still willing to talk then? Because if not,then this will end now, and I have to say good bye.

No, I'm willing to talk later.

But before you come back, make sure you're not mixing up "cool new ideas" with "prettier graphics".

(sigh) Sorry, but I don't have the will right now to give you a full reply. Maybe I'll come back in a week, or maybe a month, or never - I don't know.

But I think you need to see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M

It is about Used Games, and how very, very bad it is for all console Game-Makers. In fact, it makes Ben Croshaw look like a stupid baka for thinking Used Games aren't hurting developers, or thinking: 'it's not that bad of a thing'.

In fact, It changed my mind on the topic. Please see the whole thing before replying.
And it the link doesn't work, then look for "The Devil's Halibut - Used Games" on youtube, It's by TotalHalibut.

I shall not.

1. I have better things to do with half an hour.

2. If you track our conversation backwards, you'll notice I've said NOTHING about used games.

I'm a PC gamer, man. I don't have a horse in that race.

If you want to argue me, stick with the topics that we were actually talking about, namely "For what reason would they not implement backwards compatibility?" and "What will a mediocre upgrade to hardware do to revolutionize console game innovation?"

Furthermore, if the thing you're taking issue to right now is "used games are actually bad", then, uh, why are you opposed to Yahtzee going to PCs, the ultimate in "no used games allowed", which is the entire bloody point of the entire bloody article?

Before you come back to answer, make sure your head is on straight.

Hyakunin Isshu:

But I think you need to see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M

That video is awful by the way. It's points are full of logic holes, and he rambles far too long. He doesn't explain anything, he just thinks that he's right and there's no argument because he worked at Game once.

Agreed about that video being awful. As well, the entire argument presupposes that every person who purchased the game used would have purchased it new if they could not have purchased it used.

This argument is terribly flawed. I'm primarily a PC gamer, but i have both a PS3 and Xbox 360 and games for both - ALL used other than Halo: Reach. I'd never have purchased any of the games other than Lego Starwars: The Complete Saga new (and the only reason i got that used, honestly, was the store i was at didn't have it new but did used). The other 15+ games werent worthwhile enough to have purchased them sight-unseen at a new-game price.

So, the developers didn't lose 15 new game sales because i bought used - i was never going to buy them new. I was not a "lost sale" - i was a "never sale". Much like piracy (a touchy subject) i think that the research would show that most people who buy used simply *are not* "lost new game sales" - they were "never gonna buy that game new anyway".

Couple that with game prices being so exorbitant and no demos... and i dont blame them.

Re: the actual topic.

PC Gaming is no more expensive than, or significantly cheaper than, console gaming.. and this will continue to be true in the next generation. Especially with Haswell just hitting the market (and, thereby, IvyBridge being marked down significantly) you ca build a pretty top-shelf gaming PC for right around 700$. As others have said, as well, you were going to have a computer anyway, so you can assume that you'd have spent money on a PC anyway if you had a console, so what your real out-of-pocket is is the difference between the cheap-ass PC you'd have bought with a console, and the price of the gaming rig.

I just built myself a new gaming PC. It isn't what a lot of people refer to as "top end" - because that now means gaming at 2560x1440 at high framerates, and not at 1920x1080. 1080p is just fine for me, however.

My rig cost me less than 700 - would have been slightly over but my Hard Drives are still totally functional so i didnt need to spend 90$ on a new one. Everything else was new (because i gave the old PC to my wife with an older, smaller drive in it). And for that 700$, i overspent on the case (A Bitfenix Prodigy, roughly 90$) and went with a better mITX Motherboard than i needed to (a nice 150$ Gigabyte model, 50$ off for bundling with Ivy Bridge CPU) so i could overclock in the future if i wanted.

I ended up with:
Core i5 3570k - performs fine for even a top-end rig, as the only real difference between the i7 and the i5 is that the i7 has Hyperthreading enabled, so clock for clock, they perform identically in games)
16GB of Corsair DDR3-1600
GeForce GTX 660Ti
DVD-R DL (LG)
BitFenix Prodigy mITX case
Nice Gigabyte mITX z77 Motherboard with 7.1 surround, dual wifi, and lots of other goodies.

All for under $700. And, if i needed it to be, it's screaming fast for daily use (i dont need it to be, i use a Mac for my daily computing/doing real computer work), but if i needed it to be, it'd be very usable.

So, sure, that's likely to be 300$ higher than the Xbone and PS4 will be at launch. It's also a lot more useful, and already outspecs them. It runs every game i throw at it at 1080p at max settings and 60fps (i havent had any desire to play Crysis 1/2/3, which would probably throw at least *some* hiccups at the system) - which is plenty "high end" enough for me.

However, the 300$ difference in cost between the Xbone/PS4 and my rig i've already saved on Triple-A games that i didn't pay sixty dollars for.

Yes, the cost of the console is cheaper than my PC, but gaming on a console, particularly the Xbone, which is going to surcharge used games, as a total, isn't any cheaper than PC gaming, and over the long run, gaming on my PC is actually significantly cheaper than gaming on a console. My PC will play most games at max or medium-high settings for the next 4-5 years... and if i need to, ill be able to extend that by simply upgrading a single component and replacing it with another mid-range part. I might even be able to get more life out of it, because, honestly, my PC is already more capable than the next console gen, and as a lot of games will be limited to what the consoles can match, that means my PC's life will be extended significantly.

Just to chip in, apologies if this has been said already; I didn't see it when I skimmed the thread. Anyway, so far as gaming on any platform is concerned I'm a big advocate of building or buying a low spec-ish PC, forgetting about the AAA titles and looking to Indies.

The majority of engaging games I've played lately wouldn't tax a system built in the last 6 years or so... actually most are probably available for the current gen of consoles too; stick with them until something seriously compelling appears for gen 4 hardware.

Pc gamers are generally speaking, better.
It's just the way is.

LordTerminal:
The games on Steam only sell for that price because they're cheap indie games or some similar situation. That's good for small time developers and all but it still doesn't change the fact that those can only last so long.

That's just not true. Premium titles go on sale at steam all the time.

The reason the prices are low is because they have competition. Not only are there other delivery services, games can often be downloaded directly from publishers, purchased retail (new or used) from brick and mortar stores, or purchased on retail websites, amazon, ebay...

Competition drives lower prices. Always has. Always will.

UrKnightErrant:

LordTerminal:
The games on Steam only sell for that price because they're cheap indie games or some similar situation. That's good for small time developers and all but it still doesn't change the fact that those can only last so long.

That's just not true. Premium titles go on sale at steam all the time.

The reason the prices are low is because they have competition. Not only are there other delivery services, games can often be downloaded directly from publishers, purchased retail (new or used) from brick and mortar stores, or purchased on retail websites, amazon, ebay...

Competition drives lower prices. Always has. Always will.

Agreed. I paid ~40$ for Borderlands 2 within two monts of the game being released. And 8$ for the regularly 20$ season pass.

I paid less for the whole enchilada than the base game cost on the consoles.

i'd hardly call that a cheap indie game.

DSP_Zulu:
snip

Well, you've got some conviction; but, honestly, I don't see the point in spending $800 to make a machine that soars in energy bills; that's noisy, and that requires game set-up configurations, and hardware settings configurations/multiple updates. So your energy bills will actually even out the discrepancy in cost with console -- it may even cost more for you. But overall, desktops are antiquated. Haswell has told us that the market is gearing portability, reduced energy costs and expanded battery life.

SONY understands this, and which is why they modded out an 8-core Jaguar AMD CPU to sub 2GHz. It makes the machine smaller, with a smaller fan -- there-bye generating less noise and heat. But the experience is still high-end, and will be adequate for servicing a creative director's vision for years to come; and that's all that really matters.

PC community = bad influence

The focus on PC forums almost always reverts back to technical discussions; in other words, the mods, 30-60FPS observations, anti-aliasing settings (and using games to compare graphics cards) -- these trump the pc community by a vast margin. Console consumers, on the other hand, busy themselves with the artistic facet; the story and mechanics of a title, because that's all that they control and observe.

Adon Cabre:

DSP_Zulu:
snip

Well, you've got some conviction; but, honestly, I don't see the point in spending $800 to make a machine that soars in energy bills;

With the advent of metered plugs, this is clearly provable as untrue. I run a ~600w PSU, and sure, it uses more energy, but the monitor it is plugged into uses about 10% of the energy as my energy-star compliant HDTV that any console would be plugged into. This is so much smokescreen.

that's noisy,

My PC is almost completely silent. It certainly is NO louder than either the PS3 or Xbox 360s sitting in the entertainment center. And that's with the stock cooler that came in the box. I could go totally silent for about 30 bucks.

and that requires game set-up configurations,

You mean, like consoles?

and hardware settings configurations/multiple updates.

You mean, like a console?

So your energy bills will actually even out the discrepancy in cost with console -- it may even cost more for you.

Hardly. Like i said, my PC/monitor uses roughly the same energy as a console + HDTV. You seem to have a really strange idea of how much energy things use. I can leave my PC on day and night (i dont, but i have i the past) - it uses roughly .30 cents of power if i do that. So.. 109$ if i leave it on all day, every day, for an entire year. I haven't measured the console, but i have measured the TV (my wife and I have been experimenting with using remote-switched plug covers to completely de-power things that have standby modes, which suck up a lot more energy than you think, so we got one of the metered plug covers to see which ones really needed it). The HDTV alone (an Energy Star device) runs ~.17c a day. It's a complete wash, and the fact that i've saved the cost of the console in sales for AAA/desireable PC games still offsets this. And that's just this year. Ill save that much again next year. And the year after. If not more.

But overall, desktops are antiquated. Haswell has told us that the market is gearing portability, reduced energy costs and expanded battery life.

Which is why there are no desktop Haswell CPUs. Oh, wait! THere are! And hardly antiquated. No laptop, however nice, can perform as well in games as a far cheaper desktop. It's the nature of the platform.

SONY understands this, and which is why they modded out an 8-core Jaguar AMD CPU to sub 2GHz.

You can get a Haswell i7 (laptop part) that will draw 22w TDP and run rings around that Jaguar, which, going by the stock parts (the only thing we have) has almost twice that draw at 2ghz. I seriously doubt that the Jaguar in the PS4 is somehow magically twice as power efficient. So this is just fanboy fiction.

It makes the machine smaller, with a smaller fan

There are Haswell laptop designs that are fanless. There are Haswell ultrabooks that are 1/4" thick or less and have fans imeasurably smaller anything on the PS4. There are entire computers which will outperform the PS4 (midrange ultrabooks) that are 1/10th the size of the PS4.

-- there-bye generating less noise and heat. But the experience is still high-end, and will be adequate for servicing a creative director's vision for years to come; and that's all that really matters.

Except that by the time they come out, the experience will only be high-end for about a year. They will already be running low-midrange parts at launch. Within 18 months, 80$ performance GPUs and a 90$ budget CPU will outperform it across the board, and once again, the limitations of the consoles will hold back what "high end" can be because anyone who isnt developing exclusively for PC will use the weak performance of the consoles as the max baseline because theyre going cross-platform.

PC community = bad influence

The focus on PC forums almost always reverts back to technical discussions; in other words, the mods, 30-60FPS observations, anti-aliasing settings (and using games to compare graphics cards) -- these trump the pc community by a vast margin.

Not that the entire population of the PC forum is even one thousandth of a percent of PC gamers, any more than console forums are a sizable percentage or truly representative of the console market. Nature of internet forums.

This last one is just hillarious, trying to portray console gamers as this enlightened higher race of game-auteur that is only concerned with artistic value. This is where i *knew* you were trolling. If that were true, then 85% of console sales wouldn't be of games that also come out on PC and are better on PC - you know, games like Skyrim and Call of Modern Battlefail - or sports games.

Console consumers, on the other hand, busy themselves with the artistic facet; the story and mechanics of a title, because that's all that they control and observe.

Yeah, just cant take that seriously.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here