Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

Jamous:
Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, 'very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games :) In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD/Fifa doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole and one that Fifa never appealed to.

Diablo 3 is an example of a big PC title, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it. Guild wars 2 shifted nearly as much as Halo 4 has ('over 3 million' versus 4 million), and that needed a much better PC than a console to run.

The overall install base on PC, if we assume PC is only steam which is a massive underestimate, which is currently on par with what the PS4 will be (we can go off GPU alone, as pretty much anyone who can start a modern game on PC will have a CPU on par) is around 8m users. Which isn't bad overall considering many PC gamers are happy with cards like the gtx560 Ti/HD6870 for now, and for good reason.

Twinmill5000:
Oh look another console/PC war in the comments.

Pretty much every point I could bring up here has probably been brought up in one way or another, so I won't say much. Instead, I'm just gonna put another 100 in the bank for my GTX780 fund, spend 20 dollars on crap for Tera, and probably stream some shitty footage of me doing PvE like I matter while later handpicking the highlights to make a somewhat memorable Youtube video.

Well, no one is going to argue with you on the MMO portion. The painful truth is most MMOs aren't fun to play and exist solely as outlets for competitive play and showmanship. To make matters worse, we've got MMOs to blame for inspiring companies to add achievement systems and other metagame based features, which take people out of the games they are playing and into some kind of strange matrix like world where all games are just point mills for personal worth. Being a long time player of World of Warcraft I've come to realize the whole self perpetuating cycle this brings and how difficult it is to pull oneself out of it (people in the grip of it are afraid to stop because they don't want to fall behind their peers).

The Comfy Chair:

Jamous:
Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games :) In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole it seems. This doesn't apply to all MMS, as Battlefield 3 sold well. Diablo 3 also sold well, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it.

Definitely. That's kind of what I meant though; the really high end stuff is still expensive, so only those that can afford it (or REALLY want it) will get that sort of tech. If you priced a console at the sort of area that a PC with top end processor, RAM, Graphics Card etc. etc. had then that console wouldn't sell because of the extortionate price. I mean, didn't the PS3 suffer in sales because of the pricing at the start of its lifetime? I seem to remember something like that, though I could be pulling it out of my arse I'll be honest. Either way, pricing will affect sales.

And as usual, any thread that touches the subject will be used by PC nerds trying to posit why their choice is the best thing ever, while console nerds disagree with equal stupidity. And yet, both sides will come across as stupid.

Meanwhile, sane people don't give a damn about any of that and just get whatever device plays whatever games they are interested in. That's all that matters.

Slightly better or worse graphics don't matter in the slightest. I rather play Ultima Underworld II or Baldurs Gate II then Dragon Age II.

zefiris:
And as usual, any thread that touches the subject will be used by PC nerds trying to posit why their choice is the best thing ever, while console nerds disagree with equal stupidity. And yet, both sides will come across as stupid.

Meanwhile, sane people don't give a damn about any of that and just get whatever device plays whatever games they are interested in. That's all that matters.

Slightly better or worse graphics don't matter in the slightest. I rather play Ultima Underworld II or Baldurs Gate II then Dragon Age II.

Unfortunately, the insane people seem to be the bulk of the community.

Jamous:

The Comfy Chair:

Jamous:
Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games :) In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole it seems. This doesn't apply to all MMS, as Battlefield 3 sold well. Diablo 3 also sold well, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it.

Definitely. That's kind of what I meant though; the really high end stuff is still expensive, so only those that can afford it (or REALLY want it) will get that sort of tech. If you priced a console at the sort of area that a PC with top end processor, RAM, Graphics Card etc. etc. had then that console wouldn't sell because of the extortionate price. I mean, didn't the PS3 suffer in sales because of the pricing at the start of its lifetime? I seem to remember something like that, though I could be pulling it out of my arse I'll be honest. Either way, pricing will affect sales.

The PS3 did suffer a bit, and that is down quite a lot to the pricing. It's why the PS3 shed so many features in the first year or two to keep costs low.

The Nvidia spokesperson is right overall in terms of where the PS4 is positioned, although i wouldn't say the hd7850 is mid to low end :P it's more bang straight in the middle of mid range now seeing as it's a 120-140 card (admittedly the HD7850 will be faster due to dedicated memory, as opposed to sharing with the CPU, but *shrug*). Overall i think it's a good place for Sony to aim for in order to sell the console.

I just wish they had focused more on the CPU side. I'd much prefer a decent CPU (AMD FX8320 or similar) coupled with a fairly 'bleh' GPU like a HD7750 that would provide a small bump over current graphics at 1920x1080/60fps. Since that would allow for seriously improving AI and how we interact with the world. If people want prettier graphics on top of the improved interactivity, the PC is there. But how the PS4 is now, we're still going to be limited by a 'meh' level of CPU power in the console market, meaning all multiplatform AAA games will do (for the most part, games like BF3 are the exception) on PC is pretty things up and add superficial interactivity like PhysX, much like now.

Unfortunately, the insane people seem to be the bulk of the community.

This one, maybe, but general gaming community? I doubt it. There's been a push for retro, minecraft is uber popular even now, and people still happily play SNES games on their Wii.

This entire debate is a debate waged among very few people that care disproportionally much about graphics and random stats. Most people just care about actual gameplay fitting what they want. Most people don't even know what 720p and 60 fps MEAN. I've gamed since the Ultima Underworld days, and I sure am not able to tell the difference between 1080p, 720p or generally good PS3 games. They look good enough to me, I hardly see a difference - heck, Shadow of the Colossus doesn't look worse to me than Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3. Most people are the same. That's why you often see console gamers thinking that their games have the exact same graphics as PC ones, while PC gamers point at stats and say no, they don't.

The reason for this is that only affectionados can even spot the difference while playing. Most just don't care. Which is also why, say, WoW is still so popular. Despite the graphics, which should be pretty outdated now.

The Comfy Chair:

Jamous:

The Comfy Chair:

'Hardcore' (as in, very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games :) In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole it seems. This doesn't apply to all MMS, as Battlefield 3 sold well. Diablo 3 also sold well, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it.

Definitely. That's kind of what I meant though; the really high end stuff is still expensive, so only those that can afford it (or REALLY want it) will get that sort of tech. If you priced a console at the sort of area that a PC with top end processor, RAM, Graphics Card etc. etc. had then that console wouldn't sell because of the extortionate price. I mean, didn't the PS3 suffer in sales because of the pricing at the start of its lifetime? I seem to remember something like that, though I could be pulling it out of my arse I'll be honest. Either way, pricing will affect sales.

The PS3 did suffer a bit, and that is down quite a lot to the pricing. It's why the PS3 shed so many features in the first year or two to keep costs low.

The Nvidia spokesperson is right overall in terms of where the PS4 is positioned, although i wouldn't say the hd7850 is mid to low end :P it's more bang straight in the middle of mid range now seeing as it's a 120-140 card (admittedly the HD7850 will be faster due to dedicated memory, as opposed to sharing with the CPU, but *shrug*). Overall i think it's a good place for Sony to aim for in order to sell the console.

I just wish they had focused more on the CPU side. I'd much prefer a decent CPU (AMD FX8320 or similar) coupled with a fairly 'bleh' GPU like a HD7750 that would provide a small bump over current graphics at 1920x1080/60fps. Since that would allow for seriously improving AI and how we interact with the world. If people want prettier graphics on top of the improved interactivity, the PC is there. But how the PS4 is now, we're still going to be limited by a 'meh' level of CPU power in the console market, meaning all multiplatform AAA games will do (for the most part, games like BF3 are the exception) on PC is pretty things up and add superficial interactivity like PhysX, much like now.

Well you know how it is. We're all obsessed with 'the graffix'. Prettying up is always nice all the same though. Either way, the PS4 is going to be perfectly functional, if perhaps a bit low on processing. The HD7850 is a perfectly good card anyway, so that's not really an issue.
Also please tell me your Username -is- the Monty Python reference. Please. ;D

The thing i'm really looking forward to out of all this is finally an end to that bloody "Plays best on NVidea!" splash tag that so many games seem to have. I moved away from Nvidea when their cards were in the 4-digit series and moved to AMD/ATi/Radeon (Call them what you will) I find them to be more stable, more easily upgraded over time with simple software updates (Bonus for consoles as well as PCs), cheaper (They don't advertise as openly) and, if you also have an AMD CPU (Currently running a Phenom II 1090T Hex) you get some very nice subtle little performance tweaks. Nvidea does have power, yes, but at quite a high cost. And don't forget, AMD also make the CPUs for the consoles, so all in all, these so-called "low end PCs" will probably be able to handle the next 5-10 years of games with no problems at all, for a fraction of the cost of a high end rig.

That being said i'm a PC gamer through and through and i think all the consoles should burn in hell. Just because i appreciate the technology level they'll be at and see how everyone else will make use of and enjoy using them, doesn't mean i have to LIKE them.

But, don't you see? My choice is the best thing ever. For me.

I mean, a gym membership might help too, and... more expensive 'healthy' food, and probably a savings account for a 401k, but, as far as what I want, PC is the best option for me. Trolling super serious console vs. PC debates probably isn't the best thing for me, though.

It sure is entertaining, however.

As for where I stand, because let's get super serious, shall we? I do believe Consoles are just shitty PCs. Here's the catch, consoles are supposed to be shitty PCs in that their firmware sucks, but their hardware is from 5 years in the future (for what they go for). That's how they work. Except, now, the major companies that supplied consoles with their power and the ability to completely fuck the customer in every other way, are pandering to their main audience more, once more, because, let's face it, Sony's a dickhead of a corporation when it comes to hardware. Nvidia's pushing towards their own vision, viewing Sony's contract as an option in their agendas.

And... great. Some people don't want to use their console for their computer stuff. Most people don't. They also don't want to spend 1100 or more every 3 years just so they can have most awesome gaming experience ever (fine, 500 for a decent one), and most people don't want to spend that sort of money on a machine that's insanely complicated and difficult to navigate if you're new to the whole thing (so the console's shitty firmware actually has some plusses).

But some people do. Some people know it's more expensive-- harder to get into, but still really want the cherry on top of their gaming. And those people are only gonna get more prominent, or their spending will at least, because enthusiasm works like that. People will still pay to have a huge, centralized computer that can run 5 games at once, on 5 seperate displays, all throughout the house. Because, PCs: where fuck cloud gaming, you can make your own cloud that's better. Those people are also in the minority and have to pay accordingly for that awesome tech.

Holy shit, some people STILL don't get it.

More powerful hardware DOES NOT JUST MEAN BETTER LOOKING GAMES. More powerful hardware means more resources. More resources can translate to things like more objects that can be rendered on screen or better physics. Both of these can greatly improve gameplay.

If it weren't for hardware advancements over the years, we'd still be playing two dimensional platformers in pixel art. Complex games like Portal, Battlefield or The Witcher would not exist. By having more powerful hardware, we open ourselves to more, newer possibilities with games.

The PS4 might end up being pretty good, but this "I don't care if the hardware isn't powerful, I just want to play fun games" some people seem to have reeks of ignorance. As of late the consoles have been dictating the general hardware requirements for a lot of games. A lot of people are upset about the PS4's relatively weak hardware set because it holds back new technology from being used because the "baseline" hardware can't handle it. So everyone is poorer for it.

Example: These videos shows a new destruction engine that wont likely be used for several years.


Jamous:

Well you know how it is. We're all obsessed with 'the graffix'. Prettying up is always nice all the same though. Either way, the PS4 is going to be perfectly functional, if perhaps a bit low on processing. The HD7850 is a perfectly good card anyway, so that's not really an issue.
Also please tell me your Username -is- the Monty Python reference. Please. ;D

Lol, sorry, i found about about the Monty python reference after i started using the name. I just used to love the killing spree notifications in games like UT saying 'The comfy chair is godlike!'

But ya, the HD7850 is a decent enough card, i'd have no problem recommending it for someone playing on a PC for a few years. It's just the PS4s CPU which makes me a sad panda seeing as it's hardly 1/4 the performance of a stock i5-2500K really :<

And that is what we call a blatant lie. He's bitter about AMD being the chosen partner for next gen consoles so he's badmouthing PS4 like crazy.
God, this is so low.

Lord_Gremlin:
And that is what we call a blatant lie. He's bitter about AMD being the chosen partner for next gen consoles so he's badmouthing PS4 like crazy.
God, this is so low.

He's not lying o.O The CPU is low end (8 core netbook CPU). The GPU isn't 'low to mid range' though. I'd say more central mid range.

Pointing out a that a Honda Accord is not a sportscar...elitism
Pointing out that the standard US Marine is not a Navy SEAL...elitism
Pointing out that a Psych undergrad is not a psychologist...elitism

There are just as many wild claims from enthusiastic devs and Sony reps stating that the PS4 will outperform PCs. Until the bloody thing is released it is a rather unimportant discussion.

I will say that consoles generally seem to be more efficient with their hardware when running games. A console OS is far less bloated than say Windows, so more "power" can be directed to the game itself. On the other hand, the use of memory shared by both the GPU and CPU might be a counterbalance to this effect.

Regardless, the market will always dictate the speed of technological progress (unfortunately). The PS4 is a welcome development to me as a PC gamer, as I cannot wait to see what the next-gen titles have in store. If these claims by Nvidia are true, I would say that I am actually relieved as it means that I will not have to spend more money on upgrades.

The Comfy Chair:

Jamous:

Well you know how it is. We're all obsessed with 'the graffix'. Prettying up is always nice all the same though. Either way, the PS4 is going to be perfectly functional, if perhaps a bit low on processing. The HD7850 is a perfectly good card anyway, so that's not really an issue.
Also please tell me your Username -is- the Monty Python reference. Please. ;D

Lol, sorry, i found about about the Monty python reference after i started using the name. I just used to love the killing spree notifications in games like UT saying 'The comfy chair is godlike!'

But ya, the HD7850 is a decent enough card, i'd have no problem recommending it for someone playing on a PC for a few years. It's just the PS4s CPU which makes me a sad panda seeing as it's hardly 1/4 the performance of a stock i5-2500K really :<

Heh, that's as good a reason as any for the Username. Ah well. I guess the CPU will have to do. I got myself a decent PC recently anyway so I'm not all that bothered about new consoles atm anyway. PCs just seem better to me. :P

"which launched in March 2012, more than a year and a half ago.""

Uhhh...wat?

March 2012 happened over a year and a half before March 2013?

Jyrik:
yeah, it's a total misnomer anyway. The term elitism implies some sort of exclusivity or special designation, whereas anyone is free to get a PC and join the "elite."

Of course! You know, besides that whole "money" thing.

OT: The PS3 isn't a low-end PC. It's a PS3. The point of the PS3 is to be as powerful as it can, relevant to games, while maintaining a low enough price point to sell. It's not the same thing as a PC.

Who the hell cares Nvidia? The reason you buy a console is because you don't want to spend $800 building a pc. I will buy the ps4 for the fact that it will be quick and easy to set up and because I know that developers will continue to optimize games specifically for its specs. Does this guy really think people would be willing to spend more than $500 on a new console?

Microsoft does business with NVidia with the original XBOX and then drops them. Sony does business with NVidia with the PS3 and then drops them. NVidia lost the contract to make the 3DS video chip (the Tegra).

NVidia has been dropped by all three major console/handheld manufacturers, they are obviously a big part of their own problem. I know there isn't alot of money in making console parts but most people also don't buy the highest end video cards at their launch price.

In other news, fire is hot. New research points out that putting your hand on a lit burner can cause serious burns, blisters and loss of flesh. It's unsure at this point if people should avoid blankets and other sources of warmth but until more facts are uncovered try to minimize the amount of time you keep your hand in a fire.

Somebody is mad that that thing is not powered by a dual Titan.

To be honest, I would like to see the thing to pack a bit more power, but then again I am pretty happy what is possible with the current hardware already, and as it looks like the game devs would use the plus in power just for some more lensflares anyways, so w/e

Sounds like someone's a little bitter about not having their GPU chosen for the console... lol

Well, it's better than my computer. Granted, I got mine around 2005 or something, but still...

Ultratwinkie:

Absolutionis:
The fact that Nvidia lost the PS4 bid to their rival doesn't really bode well for Nvidia trash-talking the PS4 like this. The whole thing comes off as something as tactful as EA tends to do in Press Releases.

Sony didn't want to pay a lot of money. They said this for years because they can't afford it.

In the corporate world you call that a deadbeat and tell them to get the fuck out.

Sony tried to low ball, now it has shitty specs.

You get what you pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. Its how the market works, if you can't handle the market you get out.

Terramax:
The first paragraph is all you need to read before writing off Tony Tamasi's comments completely.

What? That sony is in financial trouble now and wants a cheaper console?

Its no fucking secret.

Its also no fucking secret that the specs are decent at best. Which doesn't say much for longevity.

I don't know, you sound pretty elitist with all those facts.

destroyer2k:
Here are all your answers.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

2 core cpu most used
2-4 gb of ddr is most used
1gb of vram
and the gpu side is not the most spectacular in steam survey

And when you look at your statistic is show ps4 will be more powerful than most of the average pc. Not high end but there is a difference console will be 400-500$ and a better pc will be more expensive.

Now the point of my comment is that if 5% of gamers have a 1000-2000$ pc, does not mean the rest of 95% have the same pc.

Sorry for bad english.

What I got from that is that people spend money on everything but the CPU. 8GB RAM standard, of course.

Mr.K.:
Well when you start off with that statement we just know you jelly, also I love how the queens of locking down are now all happy about open platforms.

very true.

while obviously some of the stuff he says is a "no duh you dumbshit" moment, he just comes across like a butthurt child because his toy wasn't picked for show'n tell.

PC is slowed down by OS while on consoles can interface directly with hardware so even weaker GPU on console should match the performance of decent gaming rig. Which should enable next gen console to run some sweet looking games and they have now huge and fast memory so multiplatform games should not be hampered by low memory on consoles. Also most of the current gen games look great even on low spec pcs

Sadly, every console has at least one major underpowered component, if it didn't, consoles wouldn't be cheaper than other PCs. Last generation had horrible RAM, which turned most console games into corridors, next generation will have horrible CPUs, which will continue stifling gameplay advances. I wonder if there will ever be a console with a horrible GPU. A cheap console that will give more freedom to developers.

Reyalsfeihc:
This guy seems really pissed that they lost the bid to AMD. Nvidia in my opinion has always overcharged for their components, and for them to tout their project Shield as something they see being profitable is a joke, especially at the price-point it's currently placed at. They didn't "cut ties" with Sony and Microsoft, they lost in a bargaining match that AMD was more than willing to bend a bit for.

In regards to the inherent old age of the components that will be included in next gen consoles, people don't need a GTX 680 to run games. As a PC enthusiast I'm running high end hardware, but some people just want to play their games, and don't care about how many particles can be accurately simulated, or how sharp the lines outlining their fauna are. They simply want to play games.

To even purport that the specs represent a LOW END PC is ridiculous. The parts are outdated in comparison to modern day gaming PC's, but this is one of the best priced consoles in terms of raw performance in ages so far.

I don't think NVIDIA is "pissed" at all, they have larger fish to fry, for instance they are selling their new Tesla cards to supercomputers for several thousand dollars a piece: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-supercomputing-solutions.html

image

They unfortunately had to push back the next generation of "GeForce" cards (one I am waiting for to upgrade) because that business proved more profitable and they don't have the resources to supply both...

They also have a bigger part of the high-end PC market: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

It's AMD/ATI that is in financial trouble and would make concessions in negotiations to get some business in. Thus it isn't surprising that they will feature in the new consoles.

Xyebane:
I'd have to agree. How can anyone really justify investing in the new console generation if they are only shipping with 8GB of RAM? Does anyone really think that 8GB is going to be enough in 5 years? When the Xbox 360 and the PS3 were announced they were really amazing specs at the time and you can even see now how weak those consoles are and how they are hamstringing the industry. Now they aren't even aiming for amazing, just settling for okay. Okay now is going to be absolute crap in 5 years.

If both consoles go with 8GB of RAM, that won't exactly be a problem like it was in the last console generation. The CPU will most likely prove to be the bottleneck, and to a lesser extent the GPU.

Guy sounds really bitter to be honest. The Ps4 will be awesome and so will the next xbox regardless if Nvidia is involved or not. The ps4 will have 8gb of DDR5 ram compared to the 512 the current consoles have I would say it will do damn well. Also with 8 cores, developers will be able to optimize for the system as it is designed to be. PCs games are usually optimized for far less and don't take advantage as much as they should. We shall see though. 1.84 Tflops on the graphics card isn't anything to scoff at either. Eager to see what the Nextbox will be packing. :D

On one hand, he's probably technically correct.

On the other, there's a lot to be said for a dedicated group of programmers working towards a single technical specification with a top resolution of 1080p. There's something to be said for being very good at reaching your fullest potential versus having greater potential you never really use.

Somebody doesn't understand the concept of writing to the metal, or unified specifications. Also, mass market appeal and adoption means games will be made with console specs in mind for the forseeable future. Sure developers could make a thirty million dollar game that only runs on the most advanced hardware created-- but it won't be economically feasable for quite a few years, and by then the PC elitist will have moved on to buy even more powerful (and expensive) cards that nobody makes games for yet. The cycle of suckers continues...

Callate:
On one hand, he's probably technically correct.

On the other, there's a lot to be said for a dedicated group of programmers working towards a single technical specification with a top resolution of 1080p. There's something to be said for being very good at reaching your fullest potential versus having greater potential you never really use.

Aye, although as mentioned previously, consoles don't perform much better (talking 10-15%) than their PC component counterparts (e.g. a 2.5GHz C2D and a 8600GT). That's mainly because of the move to third party engines like unreal engine and cryengine as opposed to a lot of propriety engines in the PS2 era.

So, as much as it's brought up all the time, optimization on console really doesn't account for much it seems. Yes, there's an overhead with the windows OS (which is pretty much negated by vastly more powerful PC CPUs) and directX, but it's surprisingly little overall. The way it's described, you'd think a 360 could hang with a 8800GTX or something.

Overall, pretty much all work done with console optimization transfers across to PC. It's one of the reasons PC gamers haven't had to updates cards for console-like settings and games for years and years. Very highest settings? Sure, but that's a whole different ballpark.

I don't think nvidia is taking into account optimization here, but they're probably mostly right. Doesn't matter to me though. It's a vidya game system meant for convenience. Besides, as long as gaming systems make the most money for devs, then console's graphical capabilities will remain the primary benchmark that devs will feel they have to meet. Harnessing the full power of a current high-end PC will remain cursory for many devs, especially considering it's (I imagine) cheaper to make games with less graphical complexity. Obviously not true of all devs and the games they make, but I can't see how development costs are going to remain manageable in an attempt to keep up with PCs that continue to grow rapidly, despite sales numbers not seeming to be trending in that direction.

Besides, I don't feel like dropping a few hundred bucks every year or so just to be able to play the most current games on medium-high settings. I'd prefer just to have a decent rig in the last few years of a console's life, when the gulf between PC and consoles is particularly apparent.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

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