And mine is a 32GB Ram, Nvidea 680GTX (was thinking about a new one soon but it works fine for now) with an AMD 8150 overclocked to 4.1 GHz, and I love it too.
I originally had a Radeon 5870 but that was before I knew how important the GPU was and that I didn't really need to spend extra money on the CPU. My motherboard supports up to 32GB but I haven't come close to 8GB, let alone my 16GB. So I figure if I wait until it would benefit me then RAM will be even cheaper. I'll mention that my RAM is 1866Mhz rather than the standard 1600 but I don't know if that makes any kind of noticeable difference.
Hmm, I wouldn't have thought those two cards would be capable of crossfiring.
TV point is moot at best as I didn't include the price in the equation. And as a I can counter your argument as most homes still have a PC from before the point where tablets were popular. Or perhaps a laptop but one of the first things people buy with a laptop are a headset and a mouse and if it was a desktop a mouse, keyboard and speakers/headset.
Laptops also add hundreds of dollars to the price to get up to gaming territory. And if someone has a monitor already, that doesn't make it a $0 cost. It's the original cost accounted for in some arbitrary way (such as dividing the cost by two to account for the first pc and then this pc). However, that's a sunk cost so it really shouldn't be considered in the decision process for the same reason that a TV wouldn't be considered for a console. I do question your claim that everyone has a monitor. I had to buy one last time I built a machine. It also isn't too far back in time before the regular PC owners stop having HD monitors capable of 1080p.
So you're renting games and when the service stops/ changes at the end of the gen you'll lose them again. I just looked at the free games. 20 titles half being indie games and at least 2 remakes (Backwards Compat.).
So you're still paying $250 for games that would cost you less in total. (I should have left the Vita games out because they are for a handheld but okay.) Also do you get any DLC with the Borderlands 2?
That list is only of the ones that are currently available. As time progresses, the 12th one (oldest one) on the list disappears and a new one is added onto the list. It's twelve because there are twelve months in the year and games cycle out. So I actually have gotten many more games over the past few years that I can still download going forward even though they're no longer on the list for newcomers. So, in one year, you get at least 12 titles for $50, access to some decent discounts that can be 75% off and bonuses (free DLC and stuff occasionally pops up), significant demos that are time locked rather than gameplay locked (usually 1 hour), free online storage and that's about it. Depending on how this changes when the PS4 is in full swing we'll know if it continues to be worth it (and believe me, I will change my position otherwise). But for right now, it's entirely worth it. It looks like they've added two PS4 games for the first two months it has existed. So this next year could see two games (one ps3 and one ps4) in addition to Vita games.
Don't know about Borderlands 2 DLC, probably not, but I didn't even know it was available until I looked it up for our discussion. The Vita games are part of what the $50 gets you so it should be considered. Please understand, I generally only play a handful of games online. COD is really the only game I can think of that I actually buy for online playability. So I could pretty easily go without the multiplayer service. However, the service they offer for the $50 has outweighed the cost for me so I've been a PS+ member already in the ps3 generation. I will always own those games on my PSN account and it's not like I'm having trouble getting even an original NES today for cheap.
This also really depends on how Gaikai is used. If it requires a purchase of a game outside of the PSN purchases then yeah, the ps3 games are gone. However, the PS4 games should remain for future generations thanks to the x86 architecture. So I'm not sure this is really a problem. As for the games that are older, these are classics. That HD remake of Shadow of the Colossus is one I was personally waiting on. What's more is that that list is only the ones that are CURRENTLY available.
I will note that Microsoft's deal does appear to be a bad deal. They even have the 2 games thing slotted to end after this month.
No the link I posted in my first post in this thread was meant to run Linux with Wine. So that's free.
Linux is only now beginning to become supported by game developers. Even then it can be a beast to manage, especially in other areas. Linux is more of a pet project than a simple and "free" OS. The opportunity cost is comparable to the cost of the OS where time is concerned.
Well her in Europe the rule is usually that PC games are around €45-50 and Console games are €55-70.
Example Assassin's Creed IV is 50 without discount for PC and 70 for PS4. (No Xbone here yet) Though the PS3 and Xbox 360 are the same as the PC... (Source in dutch:Link)
Here it's usually $60 for a new game and the same for a digital copy for awhile before it's knocked down to 50. However, let's take Amazon for example:
Assassin's Creed IV is available across all platforms. The only digital version is some crazy $80 game for some reason whereas the console games have prices in the $40's for used copies. You can get the standard version on steam for $60 however (I click on the standard version and it says it's not available, weird). No used copies there.
So really, it's nice to look at our huge and steep sales for games that have been out for half a year or more but new games can often be worse where digital sales are concerned because of a lack of the second hand market. As PCs become more and more common this is only going to get worse.
Bioshock was made by Boston 2k Studios at the time a new studio that needed to make money before they could spend money on making it pretty.
No, horribly wrong. It isn't a "new studio", it's actually a subsidiary of Take Two Interactive. It was created after they (Take Two) acquired Visual Concepts which had the whole 2k sports lineup. Hence the rebranding 2k name. It had all the money it needed within reason from its parent company.
When I look at these again I don't see an amazing improvement.
Did you play them? The difference is astounding. Uncharted 3 is one of the prettiest games I've ever seen. Uncharted 1 was really pretty for the time but it has been outclassed by 2 and 3.
Back then the Consoles actually beat the PC hands down so that's no surprise.
I'm not sure you're getting the point. The machines were 512Mb RAM machines. That means that pc's with similar hardware should be able to do the same thing. But they can't. It doesn't matter if the pcs at the time were 256Mbs or whatever, only that once PC's caught up hardware wise they didn't catch up with capability because developers can simply get more out of them. The fact that now a 2Gb RAM machine with newer CPU/GPUs is equivalent to a 7 year old console with 1 quarter of the specs should tell you more about what you need to know about optimisation and it's benefits more than anything else. It means that machines matching the PS4's hardware will not be to keep up. So this is my entire point. Buying a machine with the same specs does not mean it'll keep up with it.
Except now the $400 can keep close to the consoles and with DDR4 and GDDR6 coming out next year prices will drop and in 4-5 years $300 will buy you a machine that are a heck of a lot more powerful.
Yes, in 4-5 years the PC market should exceed even the advantages gained from optimisations on the console. Same as it did this generation. Then, two years after that a new console will be released and the ps4/XBO will only be supported for a few years after the release to the 9 or 10 year mark. Same as the ps3 and 360 are appearing to do.
But, and I can't emphasize this enough, that's 4 to 5 years from now.
Non of those titles are know for being graphical master pieces. The only one you would expect it from would be the CoD but that's a brush up from the PS2 version.
Games simply look better and better as the generation continues. This should be a known fact. I'm not entirely sure why you're contesting it. For every console release ever, the games at the start are not nearly as good as the games at the end.
That is the same argument that Xbone fans say about 720p. But in the end it's not 1080; the thing PS4 fans have been Hyping all the BLOODY time.
Oh, I agree that it's not 1080p. I'm just explaining that 900p upscaled can be pretty difficult to differentiate from 1080p. The differences are usually pretty minor. It sucks that the XBO hasn't shown the ability to run stable at 1080p like the PS4 has, but I also think they've made some really bad decisions that harmed the quality of their hardware this time around and so when I talk about consoles I limit my discussion to the PS4 which has done everything right this time around (with only the online service being debateable).
Yeah but with other generations they were better/on-par with High end PC's this generation is not. Perhaps the PS4 can wring something more out of it's GDDR5 memory but I doubt it.
As stated before, PS3's outperform PCs with the same specs by quite a bit. It doesn't matter if they were better/on par with high end PC's if it still outperforms pcs with the same specs. And I disagree with the statement that they outperformed high end pcs or were even on par with them. What would you call a high end PC in 2005? From what I've seen, $1,500 would get you a decent machine with 2Gb RAM and other components that may just barely play Skyrim today on minimum settings. At the time, that was super high end.
Almost no console is ever above current market tech. The R&D cycle is simply too long for that.
Luckily those specs were a lot cheaper to reach especially at the end.
Sure, you almost can't outperform a PS3 or 360 with a new machine nowadays. But I'm not sure what the comparable specs being cheaper at the end of a console life has to do with buying a comparable machine now? I'm not interested in what I'll be able to get 4-5 years from now, I'm interested in how I'm going to spend those 4-5 years themselves. Personally, that's likely when I'll upgrade my PC. I'm on a very convenient mid-console life cycle pc cycle.
In the previous generation used optimization to keep up with the high end system at the start to the mid/low systems at the end. But this gen is already starting down at the mid end systems.
The mid/low systems the ps3 tracks with now have newer CPUs/GPUs and more than four times the RAM when you consider Sony's ridiculous divided 256Mb sections. The 360 is just an old three core processor with 512MBs of RAM and a 500 MHz GPU.
Are you getting that those specs are FAR behind the pcs they're tracking with now thanks to optimization? It has allowed them to play games that require PCs to have almost 4 times the hardware. The Xenos chip is equivalent to a Radeon X1800 series card to give you a comparison.
These are specs that should be blown out of the water and completely unable to play most modern games that require so much more from PCs to play. This is solely achieved through optimizations in versions of games that are custom built for the machine in question. Think of it this way. Had a standard PC been built that had all of the equivalent specs, they would be able to get the same performance out of them if they had the time and resources to optimize in the same way they do with consoles.
That's all the benefit of standardized/known components is. Because the scope is 1:1 (console) instead of 1 to many where configuration possibilities are concerned, they can design things to specifically get the most out of every part of the system. It isn't that he hardware is special. It really isn't. It is purely because it is known whereas the PC you own could potentially have any number of manufacturers involved whereas your next door neighbor that also has a gaming pc could have a totally different setup but with the same performance level.
And it's the same on the PC; Intel and AMD aren't picking their nose when complaints flood in. And I've never had games that didn't work on specific drivers... I only needed to update them once in a while but.
I have had games that didn't work with specific drivers. Nvidia runs into that problem surprisingly frequently. I've got to say though, I don't know if they fixed that problem or not. I haven't tried to play Skyrim again on my new card.
The standardisation didn't come from the hardware manufacturers it came from windows being able to handle the different hardware. It started with XP and it's plug and play.
They have no added benefit. Every system has a standard OS to work with. However, note that some games are playable on Windows OS's but not Linux or Apple. So even there you've got a slightly less standard setup on computers. So this does benefit developers but not in the same way that stable and known hardware does. OS's can only make sure that applications get the best allocation of resources possible. They can't pull more out of them like you can with known hardware. The requirements you see on minimum specs are higher than they necessarily need to be to account for fluxuations in hardware. A slightly different video card or even RAM brand could cause enough of a problem to run heavy.
PS3 only had a brief period where it allowed it. See here
Any model bought after 2008 did not have any backwards compatibility. So what happens after those machines die?
You buy a ps2 or a PS3 with backwards compatibility. There's no shortage of them seeing as the ps2 has the most units of any console in existence, ever. Is there a PS2 game you're dying to play? I don't know about you but I've got a backlist of games a mile long. I simply don't have time to look back unless I'm traveling and using a handheld (e.g. I just played FF IV on my PSP during a trip to Seattle. Not as good as I remember. Boring, in fact). Backwards compatibility is nice but very seldom used. Either way, all companies have been pretty darn good with making their titles available on new consoles.
Regardless though, I already mentioned that this generation's switch to x86 may have destroyed the ease of backwards compatibility with PS3 games but it should make it possible going forward for the same reason why modern pc games should be playable a few decades from now on other x86 environments.
Lets see them do it first as the PS3 and Xbox360 have such excellent track records.
What do you mean? The 360 was able to play a significant number of Xbox games and the ps3 was originally fully backwards compatible. The architecture change of this generation to x86 was necessary for the survival of consoles and while it's unfortunate that it broke backwards compatibility, was entirely necessary. I can't even begin to explain how many problems Sony's proprietary hardware caused in development studios across the world. What a dumb move to make it hard to prevent developers from being able to unlock all of the console's potential on day one (the current CEO's own words before he was CEO). They should have been so lucky.
I'm still unclear on exactly why the XBO no longer has backwards compatibility. I was under the impression that the 360 was extremely close to PCs where architecture is concerned.
Having spend a few hours playing with my skyrim mods I have to agree. But in most cases it's the die hard fans that mod. People that are willing to put some time into it.
Sure. You and I fall into that category. But in a list of criticisms intended for the average gamer this is a valid obstacle that they should include in their considerations. I know I've sounded hostile towards pc gaming, but please continue to remember that I am pro-PC. I'm just trying to objectively explain why consoles still have their place in this world and continue to maintain relevance. The very same customizeability that we laud our PCs for is a daunting void of uncertainty for the uninitiated.
I remember the first time I built a machine from scratch. I got all the components together first and then proceeded to put them together. From sweating to cursing I proceeded to mold a useable machine out of a pile of parts. The first time I hit the power button, it booted right up. It worked the first time and I was grateful. From then on there was no PC problem too big or unsolveable. But sometimes I'll think back to that moment and wonder if things would have been any different if it hadn't booted up. Would I have known what to do or would I have had a $1,000 pile of junk for the next four months until I figured out that something dumb like the power supply's rail wasn't plugged in all the way?
Mods for consoles won't work unless they are so powerful that they can run the game with ease. Because mods do increase the strain on a system.
Sure, but most games don't utilize everything. If they did, the strain to the machines would be significant. But this generation, if games are going to be made for the weakest link (the XBO), then the PS4 may very well be capable of some nifty mods if it really is as much more powerful as it appears to be.
I couldn't care less about local (non-Lan) multiplayer. But it's slowly disappearing from the console games and thus losing a selling point that was on of it's biggest assets in the past.
No, it isn't slowly disappearing. That multiplayer support it's talking about is online multiplayer. Not local gaming. You are confusing a reduction in the number of games shipped with multiplayer with the reduction unto nothingness of multiplayer. This is just a rightsizing in a market that was horribly proliferated with nonsense multiplayer for five years at a great cost to the developers with little to no benefit to the average gamer on a lot of those titles.
Here's one example of many on multiplayer in games being there for no apparent reason:
A basic google search will return countless games and articles where people don't get why multiplayer was made for them. The market is beginning to respond but that doesn't mean games like COD which are usually sold exclusively because of multiplayer is going away. Just that studios aren't seeing multiplayer as a mandatory expense anymore and that's across the board. Those same games are also being launched on the pc without multiplayer support. What I mean is that on a console you can turn on four controllers with one machine and one TV and then have a blast. I had a couple friends at my house this past Saturday night. I'm not making up a story for convenience sake, this really happened. We got together around 7 to play COD: Black Ops II on my ps3 and then suddenly a friend looked at his watch and said, "Holy shit, it's 1 am". Now, this is extremely unusual for us. We're all adults with real jobs and we usually tire out around 10pm even on weekends. But we just had so much fun and it was so easy to keep playing that everyone in the room lost track of time. That's an experience that you can't really duplicate with a single PC on any regular basis. Whether or not you personally care about that is besides the point. It's what some people care about and it's a valid point that consoles are a better party system in this way. Same goes for my 360's kinect or the simple games like Bomberman for people who come over but don't regularly play games enough to have any fun at more complex titles like an FPS or such.
Why do you need 4gb? That's actually the recommended spec for windows Vista and up.
As a certified Microsoft tech I can say no, that's not correct (not saying I know all things, just that I generally know this sort of stuff). Vista, for example, only required 512MBs to run. 4GBs were the maximum on 32-bit OSs which was the norm at the time. However, Vista was available in 64-bit which required 1GB. Any idea where you got a recommended 4GB on that? That's more like the maximum for Vista since most copies installed were 32-bit.
1 GB for 32-bit, 2 GB for 64-bit.
Same requirements. Those simply ARE the specs required to run them. Read Microsoft's line there. It's not saying minimum or recommended. They purposefully avoided that term. It's only required. "If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes: ".
The things that reqcommend 4GB or more are typically video games and video editing applications. So that's my point. Those 4GB machines with 500 HDDs are not necessarily non-gaming machines. Many of those are absolutely gaming machines or are at least gaming capable depending on the GPU. Games aren't even generally created as 64-bit applications yet. So having more than 4GB won't necessarily make a difference yet unless you are heavily modding them. So if a hefty game like Skyrim recommends 4GB, why would you think that the OS itself would somehow recommend that number?
Now, sure, if you run a bunch of apps at one time then those minimum specs simply won't cut it. But Microsoft doesn't seem to release recommended specs for some reason. However, I would generally agree that you want 4GB at least on win7 and win8 (assuming 64-bit). It's just incorrect to say that that's the recommended number. I would still disagree with your assessment of Vista and would have placed that at 2GB recommended even if you had the 64-bit os.
Plus the fact that ram is dirt cheap. for €30 you have a 4gb bar.
So the answer is because it's cheap? That doesn't answer the question of what 4GB is used for other than gaming and video editing at the moment. Our processing far exceeds most of our needs now. Gaming and video editing as well as the desire to make things smaller to have more powerful tablets/laptops are the only things really pushing technology forward. Good for it. There was a day when word processing required a significant amount of processing power. Now it's practically a laugh. Looking at a MS word document that's been open on my PC for six months now, it's using less than 14MB of RAM. Start using it and it pops up to 20MB until I stop. Opening up a second word document only increases the overall allotment by 4 MBs rather than doubling it.
At some point, our hardware could potentially exceed the demands of screen based video games too. The only question is when that will be and if another format or method of playing games will appear that will be the next force pushing advancement.
A bit on the pricy side but this is definitly not a gaming machine.
That's an 8GB SSD cache. The 500GB is a HDD. The only thing holding this back from being a AAA gaming machine is the Video Card and even that isn't holding it back from a lot of games on minimum specs as I believe it's comparable to something like a Radeon HD 5000 series card (on the low end). Having used a 5870 for the last year, I can say that played most games on ultra settings. So what game could this machine not play (at all)? Maybe I'm missing something here though. I'm not well versed on integrated cards as I avoid them like the plague.
It's the same HDD that goes into the budget builds. Exactly the same.
What I'm not finding are the actual specs. RPMs, Cache, etc. I'm not just being lazy here, Google isn't helping.
Putting more money in the Console... that goes against what we've been discussing the beginning about prices. And any 3,5inch HDD can outdo and is cheaper than any HDD you can put in the PS4. (SSD's are the exception)
Not really, an SSD or Hybrid drive would give a performance boost to the system. You'd actually be talking about paying for a more powerful machine and not just more storage.
From what I can tell every time the numbers 20% comes up.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Problem is Steam and most companies don't publish their sales numbers which annoying.
Annoying yes, but that doesn't make it acceptable to assume things we don't know for the sake of a debate. We have to know those four things I mentioned or we can't really debate this. All we know is what they tell us and apparently it's worth their time to make games like GTA V console only for some amount of time before releasing it on PC.
True and time will tell.
History has generally proven this. Further time will just give us more data points. As of now, it's apparent that the cyclical nature of console dominance runs inversely to that of the pc. So much so that the first few years of a console signals "significant decline" for the PC to the point that journalists believe PC gaming is about to die and then towards the end of the console it's all coming up PC.
I think the big difference this time really is Steam and services like steam. I don't believe that consoles will ever steal the same amount of market share again. However, I don't believe consoles will disappear either.
Yes. I'm sure. But even then we're coming to a new era where pc's start getting significantly delayed releases. Should be an interesting obstacle for hackers.
Actually only rockstar does "significant delays" on releases. AC4 was 1 month for PC which isn't that bad considering the extra work they put into it graphics wise.
And please keep them coming. I'm enjoying them more and more.
Ah, great. I wasn't sure how I was coming across.