Xbox One

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Ermes Marana

We'll see, but I highly doubt it. Not even the super expensive high end pc components from when the 360 came out would have been able to play everything throughout the generation, despite costing way more.

And this time mid cost stuff right now will play everything for the next 7-8 years? Maybe... but I really, really doubt it.

If you set the games to console equivalent settings, ie, 1280x720 resolution, no AA, low res textures, short draw distance, etc, the old cards will still work.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

If you set the games to console equivalent settings, ie, 1280x720 resolution, no AA, low res textures, short draw distance, etc, the old cards will still work.

Don't forget 30 frames per second.

People don't seem to understand that consoles don't run games the same way a PC does.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's not preference. It's numbers; if you don't believe me, look at EA's financials and see the profits their mobile divisions pull in versus their triple-A titles. Seriously, why would I lie about this? You can verify it for yourself.

Square Enix sold four million copies of Tomb Raider and lost money; they consider it a failure. Their twelve-year-old MMORPG that can run on a toaster makes more profit.

I was referring specifically to the "AAA titles are a drain on the industry" bit.

When you dump near $100 mil on an old B-rated franchise that's never sold more than 3 mil copies, it's called piss-poor planning and project management, and is your own damn fault.

And frankly, if all the gaming you're doing are the farmville/browser type, then it doesn't matter if you're doing it on a PC or a console or just your phone, which makes me wonder what point you're trying to make, that we should just ditch everything other than mobile games?

Originally Posted by takai

I meant as in processor, graphics card, the right gaming monitor, etc etc.

It would depend first on your budget, and then the types of games you want to play.

[Ermes Marana]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

The high end gpu surely play the most of the generation, provided it is not everything in Ultra and max resolution with the consoles have not even reach. The medium quality in most games equal the quality of the consoles.

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

If you set the games to console equivalent settings, ie, 1280x720 resolution, no AA, low res textures, short draw distance, etc, the old cards will still work.

Then name the pc components from when the 360 came out that can play games throughout this generation, even with low settings.

7800gt was $350 alone, and another $350 for an x2 3800. And after spending $700 on those 2 items alone, they would have failed to last even close to the way through the generation. On any settings. The 360 would have been a much, much better buy.

Which brings us to now. I suspect it will be the same this time: a PS4 right now is probably a much better buy than trying to make a pc right now to last 8 years.

A few years from now, that can easily change.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I was referring specifically to the "AAA titles are a drain on the industry" bit.

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012...all-of-gaming/

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012...all-of-gaming/

and? did you not read the part where I talked about piss-poor planning and management?

Originally Posted by Ermes Marana

Which brings us to now. I suspect it will be the same this time: a PS4 right now is probably a much better buy than trying to make a pc right now to last 8 years.

Yup, because a PC will not last 8 years as a gaming machine, the software improves too fast for PC's brute force method to keep up over the long haul, I doubt many are still gaming on Athlon 64/Pentium D these days.

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by Ermes Marana

Then name the pc components from when the 360 came out that can play games throughout this generation, even with low settings.

7800gt was $350 alone, and another $350 for an x2 3800. And after spending $700 on those 2 items alone, they would have failed to last even close to the way through the generation. On any settings. The 360 would have been a much, much better buy.

Which brings us to now. I suspect it will be the same this time: a PS4 right now is probably a much better buy than trying to make a pc right now to last 8 years.

A few years from now, that can easily change.

Its only one year difference, my old 8800 GT now play most games in medium settings. Crysis 3 run with good perfomance in low.

And another thing that you not taking into consideration. It is the technology of GPUs has grown exponentially, not linearly. This technology has grown much faster than the technology of consoles can hope to achieve (The tecnology is ahead of the pc games, unlike the past).

So your prediction assumes that technology has evolved linearly with the consoles, which contradict the data.

This technological jump is due to growth of PC gaming.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by kyp275

and? did you not read the part where I talked about piss-poor planning and management?

It doesn't matter how well you manage your game, you will not make a profit with Hollywood-sized budgets. It is not possible. Gaming is just too niche for that.

When I say "triple-A game" I mean games with huge, huge budgets, starting at fifty million and going up from there. Triple-A games are unsustainable and cannot survive in the market, which is just niche. "Hardcore gamers" are just not that numerous.

You can spend a few hundred million on a summer blockbuster and make money, but you're going to sell a lot more than four million movie tickets. Why do you think EA's been going nuts with day-one DLC, online passes, multiplayer modes with microtransactions, effectively inflating the new-game price from $60 to $100-120? Because they're spending too much money.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

Its only one year difference, my old 8800 GT now play most games in medium settings. Crysis 3 run with good perfomance in low.

At what resolution? in any case, that's not what I'd call good performance :P Also, one year is a long time in GPU advancement, especially during the mid 2000s. The 8 series was a massive improvement that carried nvidia for a couple years.

And another thing that you not taking into consideration. It is the technology of GPUs has grown exponentially, not linearly. This technology has grown much faster than the technology of consoles can hope to achieve (The tecnology is ahead of the pc games, unlike the past).

Uh, microprocessor technology has always grown exponentially, and makes no distinction between PC or console - a piece of silicon is a piece of silicon. The difference between the two is how the hardware are utilized at a basic level.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It doesn't matter how well you manage your game, you will not make a profit with Hollywood-sized budgets. It is not possible. Gaming is just too niche for that.

Then perhaps one shouldn't develop games with Hollywood-sized budgets. It's called planning and forecasts, not being able to properly execute those means you're not managing your project correctly.

Again, I ask what's your point in going off on this tangent. You're not actually suggesting that PC gamers don't need powerful PCs because demanding titles are evil and should all go away and we should all only play mobile and small indie games?

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by kyp275

At what resolution? in any case, that's not what I'd call good performance :P Also, one year is a long time in GPU advancement, especially during the mid 2000s. The 8 series was a massive improvement that carried nvidia for a couple years.



Uh, microprocessor technology has always grown exponentially, and makes no distinction between PC or console - a piece of silicon is a piece of silicon. The difference between the two is how the hardware are utilized at a basic level.

1280x720.

What is the reason the current consoles look more and more like PC technology? Because they realized the enormous technology growth in recent years for PCs.

And the best gpu avalaible today arrives at the end of this generation and even beyond, no doubt. A current high end gpu will probably get more fps at higher resolutions than most games consoles, and when become dated will still match the fps and resolution of consoles.

Fortunately I dont need to buy a new PC, just upgrade the gpu. And I suppose most dont need to buy a new PC.

[synaesthetic]

The main reason it's been so easy for PC gamers now (as opposed to the 90s) is that PCs no longer drive the high end of gaming. Consoles do, now, and consoles run them at lower graphics modes and lower frame rates in order to make do with more modest hardware.

The xbone and PS4 aren't terribly powerful devices (this is actually good--specs really don't matter, games matter). Both use AMD Jaguar parts... laptop APUs. They're nowhere near as powerful as your average Ivy Bridge or Haswell Core i5, but they don't need to be. I'm actually kind of impressed how not-crazy both Sony and Microsoft went with their console hardware. The only thing they went nuts with was RAM, which was a good thing--8GB is plenty to keep developers from tearing their hair out.

As a result of these fairly modest specs, intended to keep consoles in their low price points, is that games can't get too crazy. PC gamers have it easy because we don't have to upgrade all our shit every year like we did back in the 90s--you pretty much build a new gaming rig every console generation and upgrade the GPU halfway through the generation and you're golden.

The thing that the industry needs to get now is that it's not Hollywood, goddamn it. They can't keep spending a hundred million bucks on the next Overhyped Sellout Lens Flare Dubstep Zombies 4 and expect to make a good profit. They also can't keep abusing their programming and artistic talent and expect to keep them--a lot of them are just going to get frustrated and go work for Google or Facebook where they can make a really good wage as a software engineer or a graphic designer or 3D modeler.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

What is the reason the current consoles look more and more like PC technology? Because they realized the enormous technology growth in recent years for PCs.

Sorry to bust your bubble there, but there is no "console" or "PC" technology... they're just different chip architectures.

And the best gpu avalaible today arrives at the end of this generation and even beyond, no doubt. A current high end gpu will probably get more fps at higher resolutions than most games consoles, and when become dated will still match the fps and resolution of consoles.

Uh, yea, and the high end GPU today will run you anywhere from $600 to $1,000 by itself. And 8 years later? they'll likely be just as worthless as a 7800GTX is today. Again, you can't directly compare console hardware with PC hardware, because how the two are used by their software is fundamentally different, consoles are much more optimized.

Fortunately I dont need to buy a new PC, just upgrade the gpu. And I suppose most dont need to buy a new PC.

Depends on your CPU, if you're running a 7 yr old CPU, upgrading your GPU will only do so much.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The main reason it's been so easy for PC gamers now (as opposed to the 90s) is that PCs no longer drive the high end of gaming. Consoles do, now, and consoles run them at lower graphics modes and lower frame rates in order to make do with more modest hardware.

If consoles are lowering their fidelity to make to do with modest hardware, how can they be driving the "high end" of gaming?

The xbone and PS4 aren't terribly powerful devices (this is actually good--specs really don't matter, games matter). Both use AMD Jaguar parts... laptop APUs. They're nowhere near as powerful as your average Ivy Bridge or Haswell Core i5, but they don't need to be.

They don't need to be, nor can they be even if they wanted to - it would be far too expensive. Like I stated above, you can't compare PC and console specs directly, it's a meaningless comparison.

As a result of these fairly modest specs, intended to keep consoles in their low price points, is that games can't get too crazy. PC gamers have it easy because we don't have to upgrade all our shit every year like we did back in the 90s--you pretty much build a new gaming rig every console generation and upgrade the GPU halfway through the generation and you're golden.

So you'd be golden gaming on an Athlon 64 with a 8800GTS today?

[Sides]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The xbone and PS4 aren't terribly powerful devices (this is actually good--specs really don't matter, games matter). Both use AMD Jaguar parts... laptop APUs. They're nowhere near as powerful as your average Ivy Bridge or Haswell Core i5, but they don't need to be. I'm actually kind of impressed how not-crazy both Sony and Microsoft went with their console hardware. The only thing they went nuts with was RAM, which was a good thing--8GB is plenty to keep developers from tearing their hair out.

I don't think it is fair to compare amd's apu to intels cpu with integrated gpu. They are just too different. Yes the cpu core is weak on the amd's APUs, but the graphic units are ahead. As a complete package the jaguar apu is probably better suit for games, than a intel without an external graphic unit. But for everyday work you probably do not really want a jaguar APU, until more programs have been adapted to use multi cores more effectively.

[synaesthetic]

I'm actually really happy they chose a slow-clocked, many-core chip for the consoles. I hope this means the PC ports will have competent multithreaded behavior... I still see some games that refuse to use more than two of my CPU's four cores.

[Dirty_Harry]

Sorry to bust your bubble there, but there is no "console" or "PC" technology... they're just different chip architectures.

Let me rephrase then. The architecture of the new consoles are becoming more alike the architecture used in PC. (Not to say the same.)

Uh, yea, and the high end GPU today will run you anywhere from $600 to $1,000 by itself. And 8 years later? they'll likely be just as worthless as a 7800GTX is today.

Yes, but it doesnt change what I said before. Will run games at higher resolutions and with more fps for a long time. And when the gpu is already dated, still will run games with good performance in medium settings.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

Yes, but it doesnt change what I said before. Will run games at higher resolutions and with more fps for a long time. And when the gpu is already dated, still will run games with good performance in medium settings.

In 8 years? not a chance.

[Ermes Marana]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

Its only one year difference, my old 8800 GT now play most games in medium settings. Crysis 3 run with good perfomance in low.

The 8800gt came out about 2 years after the xbox 360, at around $250.

The 8800gts came out about 1 year after the xbox 360, at around $500-$600.

Either way, you have to wait at least a year or two. And you have to pay a pretty significant amount. And that is only for the GPU, not the CPU, power supply, RAM, which all need to be higher for a gaming machine.

Making it worse, some of the 8800 parts only had 256 memory, so they would have become obsolete early. If you got a 512 memory at least, it would work for most (but not everything) of the generation at low settings. That's true, but doesn't mean much considering the cost when it came out and the years wait you had to do.

So I'm not seeing you disagree with me here. In order to get a pc to make it through most of the generation, you had to wait years and it was still more expensive unless you waited even more years.


If you had bought your pc in 2005 when xbox 360 released, it would have been worthless. 7800 and x2 CPU is not playing current games at all.

For current gen, I highly doubt anything you get now for comparable price will last nearly as long as a PS4. 8 GB of GDDR5 unified system memory could result in mid range current stuff getting outdated faster than you think.

Let's say you get a GTX 660 right now with 2gb memory. Is that lasting 8 years? Really?

[Dirty_Harry]

Originally Posted by Ermes Marana

The 8800gt came out about 2 years after the xbox 360, at around $250.

The 8800gts came out about 1 year after the xbox 360, at around $500-$600.

Either way, you have to wait at least a year or two. And you have to pay a pretty significant amount. And that is only for the GPU, not the CPU, power supply, RAM, which all need to be higher for a gaming machine.

Making it worse, some of the 8800 parts only had 256 memory, so they would have become obsolete early. If you got a 512 memory at least, it would work for most (but not everything) of the generation at low settings. That's true, but doesn't mean much considering the cost when it came out and the years wait you had to do.

So I'm not seeing you disagree with me here. In order to get a pc to make it through most of the generation, you had to wait years and it was still more expensive unless you waited even more years.

I say the gpu technology dont grow linearly, but exponentially. The high end gpu in 2005 was not as technologically more advanced than a xbox 360. But, in this generation the high end gpu is a lot more ahead than consoles, even a mid end.

[Dextro]

So, given how Sony is selling the PS4 I'm going to call it now: the XB1 is DOA everywhere but the US. Maybe it still has a chance in the UK but I doubt it.

[Domonkazu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Don't forget 30 frames per second.

People don't seem to understand that consoles don't run games the same way a PC does.

this is why I hated playing FPS game in console, not mention the blurring effect when you turned around