The thing is, we still see sites like DSOG that do performance benchmarks. We see people across all of youtube, mere users that run benchmarks. Duderandom makes his own benchmarks almost daily. So when a site like PCG, that can somehow scrap together an e3 event 3 years in a row, can somehow not manage to run a few benchmarks a week compared to one guy that can do them almost daily, then I start to see a bullshit issue.

If AMD or Intel are the sponsors, then I don't really see any Nvidia tech being shown off, unless it's the new Metro. But even then, we've already seen that tech in action from their specific RT trailer, so I don't really see a need to drone on about what we'd already seen in a tech trailer, for say 20-30 mins.

Pretty sure that new Anno is going to consoles, but we'll see.

The question here is what are we calling benchmarks? Because to me, it's trying to run a game across a range of available cards and hopefully processors in order to determine if your actual rig can run it and how well. And if you can't run it at the settings you want,which is the lowest combination available to meet your needs. And the key part is a range of hardware.

Since I don't know any youtober that does "benchmarks", I'll talk about DSOG that does benchmarks, yes, but with only 1 (oldish) CPU and two or three GPUs that do not represent new hardware. Check their Far Cry 5 Performance Analysis:

Their system use an i7 4930K overclocked to 4.2Ghz with 8GB RAM, and have a RX 580, GTX 980Ti and GTX 690, that use to get the 680 results. Besides the RX 580, all the other parts are old and their results don't tell use the whole story.

Now check the benchmarks that sites like Guru3D or TechSpot did for the same game:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/far-cry-5-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,1.html

With other benches for other resolutions and also CPU scalling with even Ryzen numbers.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1600-far-cry-5-benchmarks/

Heck, even HardOCP, that have a different approach to benchmarks, gives us VRAM usage numbers that let us see if our card's performance can be affected by that.

But, as I said in my previous post, that need a large selection of hardware and a lot of time, two things (specially the second one) that some sites, even PCGamer, can't afford.

It's obvious that with AMD, Nvidia wouldn't be able to show its Ray-Tracing tech, but AMD has it's own tech that could be showcased. But, last year Intel was the sponsor, so unless they put a ban on it, there's nothing stopping GPU tech, at least for now...

As for Anno, if the games goes back to 1404 levels of gameplay, I won't give a sh!t if it launches on consoles too. Remember, simple controls don't mean simple gameplay, which was the biggest problem of the last Anno games. I didn't even bother with the last one, despite looking great.

I never specifically said that they needed to cover hundreds of hardware specs. That's for sites like Tech spot and Guru to sort out, but I also never said, nor agree that those two sites should be the only ones to simply cover benchmarks as a whole.

I'd like to see PCG cover *some* benchmarks, either live or tallied via a graph.

I am able to see recorded benchmarks across youtube, with a variety of users using different hw, sometimes multiple variants for the same kind of content (like Duderandom84).

If they can afford to scrape a PC e3 together each year going forward, and making list upon list of "the best of X" articles, then they can afford a few benchmark articles here and there. If not, hire more staff, actually do something about it, rather than letting it fade away and the site becoming more casualized.

There has been no such ban put in place, but I don't see Nvidia showing up to show off their tech, and I'm less interested in AMD's.

Making Anno very complicated isn't exactly an objectively better selling point, so making it gamepad friendly, but very hard to master isn't exactly going to benefit both parties.

I'd rather it just be designed for the platform it started on, and nothing more. it's why I'm becoming jaded with each month we see more of Jurassic World gameplay, being played on a console, when the game devs previously made a good PC sim park game.

They won't hire anybody because that means extra costs for a feature that, given its absence, they don't think they need.

And the benchmark, if they want to do it right and be representative of something, has be feature different hardware configurations. At the very least, they should go with something that could be called middle-range, and feature Intel & AMD CPUs (even one of each and dissable cores to simulate other chips could work), and AMD & Nvidia GPUs (two or three of each brand). But again, that is time consuming and means having one guy doing all those tests for at last a couple days to get only one article. They're clearly not interested.

And just because they do the PC show, that doesn't mean that they put a lot of money into it. We don't know how much do the sponsors give and how much does the whole show cost. For all we know, the part PCGamer invests could be rather small and be perfectly reasonable for the advertising and publicity they get for it.

As for Anno, I didn't say complicated, I said complex. The econonmy or resources systems could be more complex and give the game some much needed deep without making the game complicated, just more demanding.

And that is where they fail, and why I don't bother visiting their site anymore.

They can easily go with at least 2-3 mid range cards, 2 high end and a possible 1-2 low end. That alone will not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a start. Digital Foundry managed to hire one guy to take on their PC side of news, and that's already begun to slow down and become far more simplistic. 

PCG clearly isn't interest much in actual PC gaming. They seem far more content in covering early access, e-sports and casually written articles. With each year, they slowly become a site that's just akin to one huge marketing ad, rather than a side dedicated to core PC gaming values and information.

I said before that they scrape money for the PCG show. I never said they don't put money into it. It's obvious that they've been putting money into it, money which they seem to have garnered more of over the years to make such a yearly event possible, which to me shows that they actually do have a good chunk of funds to hire people and gather some hw for benchmarks. Benching alone is far cheaper than a yearly event, and paying all sorts of parties to come and attend said events.

Complexity lends itself to complications of understanding a concept or how it functions. Making something complex, that could easily be understood by someone who knows it's ins and outs, but to someone else it could be too "complex" to get into, and thus become complicated for them to understand. 

Just how complex could the resource system be?. How far does it need to be taken to be incredibly fun?.

I've been playing Kingdom's & Castles, and I'm perfectly fine with it's resource system. The only thing it fails at, is properly updating for when you acquire enough food for your villagers. The castle adviser complains about not storing enough food, yet I have hundreds of farms and plenty of large granaries to store said food, with plenty of room left over. The system does not update properly when you're running at max speed, which leaves that to being a dev issue to sort out. 

I'd love for RTS's to make a large comeback, but they do not need to be needlessly complicated. 

I'd rather PC Gamer leave the benchmarking/hardware to people who know what they are doing.
We really don't need misinformation spreading, and slapping a quick benchmark on an article, really doesn't sit well with me.
I wouldn't really trust a benchmark coming from a site like PC Gamer.

It does feel like there is a market that isn't being properly addressed.
I do feel we need an outlet to handle the in-depth technical analysis of PC games.
PC Gamer probably isn't going to be the one to fill the void.

PC Gamer does provide an entry point for someone who may be new to PC gaming, they serve a more casual audience and that's fine.
Not every site needs to serve the hardcore audience, you cannot please everyone.

Leaving the benchmarks/PC Gaming show aside, I'm only asking for an Anno game that's not as simple as 2070 (and probably 2205), which means make it a bit more challenging.

Also, fun is subjective and not every game needs to be "fun". They can also be challenging or entertaining. Personally, I wouldn't consider the Anno games to be fun.

I would also like to see an RTS comeback.

Then we could also leave the PC reviews to other sites that know what they are doing as well.

Given that PCG can also be late with their own reviews, even falling behind other more smaller sites, it leaves something to be desired.

The benchmark market is slightly being addressed, just not in a way that's entirely up front and center. We have sites like Guru and Techspot, but outside of those two, not much else gains a lot of traction. This is why I tend to put more focus on recorded benchmarks from various people around youtube, because they test all sorts of configurations, but also show you visual results, and sometimes bar charts.

Linus used to do some benches a few years back, but these days he's more about the latest tech, hardware speeds and the like, rather than having a bigger focus on gaming.

yes we need a bigger outlet, but who exactly is that going to be and how long do we have to wait for said outlet to appear?. It feels like a shrug moment, where we say we need something, but no one is clearly going to fill that gap anytime soon, which is why I suggested PCG, because they are an existing outlet that tries to solidify themselves as one of the main PC gaming news sites around the globe (even though they rarely cover GBP and other currency prices out there).

Digital Foundry only has one guy managing their PC content, and even then it's so very slim in terms of content and it takes days to make up any content, while their console side of tech news is covered every few days and in greater number.

PCG is an entry point to casual PC gaming. They provide many, many casual based articles ranging from "The best of X" to "what you need to download Y of". They are an amazing site, if all you want is list based articles, to then argue over, but for me it's just information gathered from already existing outlets and sources, only more casualised.

Not every site needs to appeal to the casual side either, and the hardcore sites are so very slim in pickings compared to the casual side, just like how the casual gaming market dwarfs the hardcore one. You do not need to be the "me too" in the casual market.

I mentioned those games as an example obviously.

I wouldn't complain about a new Cities game? :P I sank so much time into Skylines...

Which is the crux of it. Sony and Nintendo throw money at certain developers to get exclusive showcasing of their games/techs.

Age of Empires IV would be fantastic actually. Although I doubt I will buy/play Age of Empires IV unless it comes to steam anyway... And I doubt that is going to happen.

But they most certainly do need depth.
There is a reason why I was playing Brood Wars on an almost daily basis for a decade.

It wasn't a complex game, but it did have allot of depth.

I'd love to see some new city building titles. Kingdoms & Castles has me thirsting for some city building games, but with added military options, like building a city and defending it. 

They need *some* depth, not a ton. They don't need to fit the e-sports SC2 master Korean level of play either. Highly competitive and complex RTS games just put me off, and seeing as how the genre is currently dwindling, I don't want to be kicked out of the genre just yet. E-sports come and go, but I won't, nor do I want to.

BW didn't have Einstein level of depth, but it was clear that new meta's came from it, that resulted in user forced complexity, so if I couldn't keep up with what a Korean player had invented via their own meta, I'd simply be aced each and every time. That is primarily why you'll never see me playing SC I, SCI remaster and SCII PVP.