By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Finally joined the PC Master Race

Conina said:
goopy20 said:

Yes a 480 GTX did still kinda work, even though I wouldn't call games running in 720p and framerates constantly dropping to 20fps a playable experience.  

So Pemalite proves that Battlefield 1 on medium (similar to console settings) runs in 1080p with 30 - 50 fps on an almost 7 year old GPU (Game Oct 2016 - GPU March 2010 = 6.5 years, almost a whole console cycle) and your take from that is "720p with framerates constantly dropping to 20fps"?

goopy20 said:

Here's an interesting video that shows how gpu requirements shift as soon as new consoles come out. You can clearly see, that once developers stopped supporting the ps3, a 560GTX or lower became pretty much useless. That is why nobody was gaming on a 560/ 480GTX or lower anymore in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=98&v=wHTdnIviZTE 

   

No, that video doesn't show GPU requirements or that a 560GTX or lower became pretty much useless in 2015. It only shows that the old models weren't in the top 15 anymore... and why should they, when dozens of other GPUs have been released since then?

GTX 560 + 480 weren't even on sale anymore for years, so people who bought a new PC (the PC gaming hardware base was also insanely growing the last decade) didn't even have an option for these cards.

Also you seem to think that most GPU upgraders buy a new GPU because they are forced to by system requirements of new games... that's not how it works. Most PC gamers upgrade their GPU when they want to upgrade and see a nice deal... long before their old GPU becomes useless. And in that case, they can often sell their old GPU for a few hundred bucks to people with less demands in graphics (f.e. people who play other genres like point&click adventures, strategy games, sport games...).

You said that you would have been "less pissed" if you bought a $200 for GTX 460GTX in 2010 instead of a $500 GTX 480 GTX for a usage of 4 years. But eventually the difference of your "investment" wouldn't have been $300 but probably less than $200, since the resell value of the GTX 480 was much higher. And for these $150 - $200 difference you would have enjoyed much better graphics in these 4 years.

Also the video proves that the GTX 560 was never nearly as popular as the GTX 1060 (which you claimed above).

At its peak (April 2012) it was in 4.6% of the surveyed Steam PCs (hardware base / active steam accounts less than 50 million in 2012, so around 2.3 million GTX 560). On the other hand, the GTX 1060 still is in 14.5% of the surveyed Steam PCs (hardware base / active steam accounts 200 - 300 million, so around 30 to 40 million GTX 1060).

If you truly believe the 480GTX is still a good enough gpu nowadays, then fine. It all depends on what games you want to play and what settings are acceptable to you. However, if you want to play all the big games at similar performance compared to the ps4, it's pretty obvious that it's not going to cut it. 

I can't read minds and I have no idea when the average pc gamer starts thinking about an upgrade. But I'm guessing that happens when games like BF6, Witcher 4, GTA 6 etc. come out and run at 12fps, 720p on your pc. MAybe that's fine for some people but I'm sure that for the majority of pc gamers, that will be unacceptable and will upgrade asap. So yeah, when games take a generational leap, it does force gamers to upgrade to either a next gen console or a better gpu. It's not like that's a bad thing. Hell, I can wait to give Sony my money and play the next gen GTA. 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 03 October 2019

Around the Network
goopy20 said:
Conina said:

So Pemalite proves that Battlefield 1 on medium (similar to console settings) runs in 1080p with 30 - 50 fps on an almost 7 year old GPU (Game Oct 2016 - GPU March 2010 = 6.5 years, almost a whole console cycle) and your take from that is "720p with framerates constantly dropping to 20fps"?

No, that video doesn't show GPU requirements or that a 560GTX or lower became pretty much useless in 2015. It only shows that the old models weren't in the top 15 anymore... and why should they, when dozens of other GPUs have been released since then?

GTX 560 + 480 weren't even on sale anymore for years, so people who bought a new PC (the PC gaming hardware base was also insanely growing the last decade) didn't even have an option for these cards.

Also you seem to think that most GPU upgraders buy a new GPU because they are forced to by system requirements of new games... that's not how it works. Most PC gamers upgrade their GPU when they want to upgrade and see a nice deal... long before their old GPU becomes useless. And in that case, they can often sell their old GPU for a few hundred bucks to people with less demands in graphics (f.e. people who play other genres like point&click adventures, strategy games, sport games...).

You said that you would have been "less pissed" if you bought a $200 for GTX 460GTX in 2010 instead of a $500 GTX 480 GTX for a usage of 4 years. But eventually the difference of your "investment" wouldn't have been $300 but probably less than $200, since the resell value of the GTX 480 was much higher. And for these $150 - $200 difference you would have enjoyed much better graphics in these 4 years.

Also the video proves that the GTX 560 was never nearly as popular as the GTX 1060 (which you claimed above).

At its peak (April 2012) it was in 4.6% of the surveyed Steam PCs (hardware base / active steam accounts less than 50 million in 2012, so around 2.3 million GTX 560). On the other hand, the GTX 1060 still is in 14.5% of the surveyed Steam PCs (hardware base / active steam accounts 200 - 300 million, so around 30 to 40 million GTX 1060).

If you truly believe the 480GTX is still a good enough gpu nowadays, then fine. It all depends on what games you want to play and what settings are acceptable to you. However, if you want to play all the big games at similar performance compared to the ps4, it's pretty obvious that it's not going to cut it. 

I can't read minds and I have no idea when the average pc gamer starts thinking about an upgrade. But I'm guessing that happens when games like BF6, Witcher 4, GTA 6 etc. come out and run at 12fps, 720p on your pc. MAybe that's fine for some people but I'm sure that for the majority of pc gamers, that will be unacceptable and will upgrade asap. So yeah, when games take a generational leap, it does force gamers to upgrade to either a next gen console or a better gpu. It's not like that's a bad thing. Hell, I can wait to give Sony my money and play the next gen GTA. 

You know, you could have avoided this whole discussion of yours if you've just argued that you have a specific set of preference as to what you consider playable which in return will force you to upgrade your PC to accommodate it. 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

goopy20 said:

If you truly believe the 480GTX is still a good enough gpu nowadays, then fine. It all depends on what games you want to play and what settings are acceptable to you. However, if you want to play all the big games at similar performance compared to the ps4, it's pretty obvious that it's not going to cut it. 

No, I don't believe that the GTX 480 (please stop using the wrong GPU names everytime!) is still a good enough GPU for me nowadays, but neither the base PS4 and base Xbox One are still a good enough for me, I have higher standards.

But that is my personal preference. Other people are fine with less powerful hardware, my brother f.e. still has a dual core CPU and a GTX 650 Ti. And not everyone wants to play "all the big games" but the games and genres he/she likes the most.



Conina said:
goopy20 said:

If you truly believe the 480GTX is still a good enough gpu nowadays, then fine. It all depends on what games you want to play and what settings are acceptable to you. However, if you want to play all the big games at similar performance compared to the ps4, it's pretty obvious that it's not going to cut it. 

No, I don't believe that the GTX 480 (please stop using the wrong GPU names everytime!) is still a good enough GPU for me nowadays, but neither the base PS4 and base Xbox One are still a good enough for me, I have higher standards.

But that is my personal preference. Other people are fine with less powerful hardware, my brother f.e. still has a dual core CPU and a GTX 650 Ti. And not everyone wants to play "all the big games" but the games and genres he/she likes the most.

Well, it's true that everybody has different standards. However console level is pretty much how developers meant their games to be played. If you have a pc that can run them at better settings and resolution, then that's great. But developers in general try to keep multiplatform games as equal as possible. Hence why high-end gpu's are overkill for anyone but a few of the gaming royalty, who can't enjoy a game unless it runs at 120fps in native 4k. 



goopy20 said:

However console level is pretty much how developers meant their games to be played.

[citation needed]

And by the way... which "console level" is currently the level how developers want their games to be played?

Switch level undocked? Switch level docked? Xbox One level? Xbox One S level? PS4 Slim level? PS4 Pro level? Or Xbox One X level?



Around the Network
Conina said:
goopy20 said:

However console level is pretty much how developers meant their games to be played.

[citation needed]

And by the way... which "console level" is currently the level how developers want their games to be played?

Switch level undocked? Switch level docked? Xbox One level? Xbox One S level? PS4 Slim level? PS4 Pro level? Or Xbox One X level?

I wish people would stop muttering that console is where "all" the money is, or that it's the lead platform, when it factually isn't:

https://www.pcgamer.com/pc-is-still-the-most-popular-platform-for-developers-and-its-lead-is-growing/

This was just published yesterday: 

https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-boss-says-its-still-a-pc-developer-first/

This was from 2016, and it's only fone up since then:

https://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-market-worth-36-billion-in-2016/

PC's made the consoles, the engines, the very games console players play. That platform is where we practically get everything from, gaming wise, because without the PC, we wouldn't have anything really. 

@bolded: That's another point brought to light, in that there is no longer a standard console level of play anymore. All of the consoles and their variants now all play at various different levels of performance, visual clarity and some of their own pros/cons. There is no longer a general standard across the board anymore. 

Hell, Nintendo's trying to make the current new Zelda release to play at 60, but even that game is suffering here and there on the Switch, that it'd have to be played docked, because they chose performance, but their system is struggling with it. (Also, I really want that game, but the performance issues and price point hold me back from buying it). 

Last edited by Chazore - on 03 October 2019

Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:
Conina said:

[citation needed]

And by the way... which "console level" is currently the level how developers want their games to be played?

Switch level undocked? Switch level docked? Xbox One level? Xbox One S level? PS4 Slim level? PS4 Pro level? Or Xbox One X level?

I wish people would stop muttering that console is where "all" the money is, or that it's the lead platform, when it factually isn't:

https://www.pcgamer.com/pc-is-still-the-most-popular-platform-for-developers-and-its-lead-is-growing/

This was just published yesterday: 

https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-boss-says-its-still-a-pc-developer-first/

This was from 2016, and it's only fone up since then:

https://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-market-worth-36-billion-in-2016/

PC's made the consoles, the engines, the very games console players play. That platform is where we practically get everything from, gaming wise, because without the PC, we wouldn't have anything really. 

@bolded: That's another point brought to light, in that there is no longer a standard console level of play anymore. All of the consoles and their variants now all play at various different levels of performance, visual clarity and some of their own pros/cons. There is no longer a general standard across the board anymore. 

Hell, Nintendo's trying to make the current new Zelda release to play at 60, but even that game is suffering here and there on the Switch, that it'd have to be played docked, because they chose performance, but their system is struggling with it. (Also, I really want that game, but the performance issues and price point hold me back from buying it). 

This isn't rocket science people, the lead platform is ps4/360 for most major AAA developers. And yes, there is a huge market on Switch, mobile and pc as well, but we are talking about the AAA core games that try to set a new standard in visuals. Most of those games don't even get released on Switch and for pc it's not uncommon to see poorly optimized ports or a game getting released years later (RDR2 anyone?). If I'm wrong then why are there so few big developers left who's main focus is still pc like: Valve, Crytek, Epic back in the days? Blizzard is probably the only one left. All the rest either went under (Looking Glass, GSC GameWorld, 3D Reals, etc.) or are focusing on console games now. 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 04 October 2019

goopy20 said:

This isn't rocket science people, the lead platform is ps4/360 for most developers.

Xbox 360 has been dead for years. - It ain't the lead of anything!
I have already provided evidence prior that the PC has a ton of developer support, stop propagating false information that has been proven to be incorrect.

goopy20 said:

And yes, there is a huge market on Switch, mobile and pc as well, but we are talking about the AAA core games that try to set a new standard in visuals.

Mobile and PC are bigger markets than console. The evidence has been provided for this prior.

The PC is setting the standard in graphics right goddamn now... It's called Ray Tracing.

goopy20 said:

Most of those games don't even get released on Switch and for pc it's not uncommon to see poorly optimized ports or get released years later (RDR2 anyone?).

Rockstar have a shit history in supporting the PC. So what?

goopy20 said:

If I'm wrong then why are there so few big developers left who's main focus is still pc like: Valve, Crytek, Epic back in the days? Blizzard is probably the only one left. All the rest either went under (Looking Glass, GSC GameWorld, 3D Reals, etc.) or are focusing on console games now. 

I have already provided a list of developers prior that focuses entirely on PC. - Did you miss that? Or choose to blatantly ignore it in order to propagate false information again?

Blizzard.
 - StarCraft.
 - WarCraft.
 - Heroes of the Storm.

Cloud Imperium Games.
 - StarCitizen.

Firaxis.
 - Civilization.
 - Alpha Centauri.

Creative Assembly.
 - Total War.

Maxis.
 - SimCity.
 - The Sims.

Blue Byte.
 - Anno.
 - Settlers.
 
Bohemia Interactive.
 - Arma.
 - DayZ.
 
Tripwire Interactive.
 - Red Orchestra.

Relic Entertainment.
 - Homeworld.
 - Dawn of War.
 - Company of Heroes.

Piranha Games.
 - Mechwarrior 5.

id Software.
 - Quake Champions.

Arena Net.
 - Guild Wars.

Riot Games.
 - League of Legends.

Frontier Developments.
 - Tycoon.

Valve.
 - Counter Strike.
 - DOTA.
 - Alien Swarm.

Epic Games.
 - Unreal Tournament.

Stardock Entertainment.
 - Ashes of the Singularity.
 - Galactic Civilizations.
 - Sins of a Solar Empire.
 - Star Control.
 - Offworld Trading Company.

Paradox Interactive.
 - Imperator: Rome.
 - Hearts of Iron.
 - Europa Universalis.
 - Crusader Kings.

Triumph Studios.
 - Age of Wonders.

Taleworlds Entertainment.
 - Mount & Blade.

Blackbird Interactive.
 - Deserts of Kharak.

Amplitude Studios.
 - Endless Space.

Egosoft.
 - X: Beyond the Frontier, X2: The Threat, X3: Reunion, X4: Foundations.

Facepunch Studios.
 - Rust.
 - Garry's Mod.

Wargaming.
 - Master of Orion.
 - World of Tanks.

PC-Lead platform AAA multiplats:
 - Battlefield 5.
 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
 - Cyberpunk 2077.
 - Control.
 - Metro: Exodus.
 - Minecraft.
 - Watchdogs: Legion.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on...



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
goopy20 said:

This isn't rocket science people, the lead platform is ps4/360 for most developers.

Xbox 360 has been dead for years. - It ain't the lead of anything!
I have already provided evidence prior that the PC has a ton of developer support, stop propagating false information that has been proven to be incorrect.

goopy20 said:

And yes, there is a huge market on Switch, mobile and pc as well, but we are talking about the AAA core games that try to set a new standard in visuals.

Mobile and PC are bigger markets than console. The evidence has been provided for this prior.

The PC is setting the standard in graphics right goddamn now... It's called Ray Tracing.

goopy20 said:

Most of those games don't even get released on Switch and for pc it's not uncommon to see poorly optimized ports or get released years later (RDR2 anyone?).

Rockstar have a shit history in supporting the PC. So what?

goopy20 said:

If I'm wrong then why are there so few big developers left who's main focus is still pc like: Valve, Crytek, Epic back in the days? Blizzard is probably the only one left. All the rest either went under (Looking Glass, GSC GameWorld, 3D Reals, etc.) or are focusing on console games now. 

I have already provided a list of developers prior that focuses entirely on PC. - Did you miss that? Or choose to blatantly ignore it in order to propagate false information again?

Blizzard.
 - StarCraft.
 - WarCraft.
 - Heroes of the Storm.

Cloud Imperium Games.
 - StarCitizen.

Firaxis.
 - Civilization.
 - Alpha Centauri.

Creative Assembly.
 - Total War.

Maxis.
 - SimCity.
 - The Sims.

Blue Byte.
 - Anno.
 - Settlers.
 
Bohemia Interactive.
 - Arma.
 - DayZ.
 
Tripwire Interactive.
 - Red Orchestra.

Relic Entertainment.
 - Homeworld.
 - Dawn of War.
 - Company of Heroes.

Piranha Games.
 - Mechwarrior 5.

id Software.
 - Quake Champions.

Arena Net.
 - Guild Wars.

Riot Games.
 - League of Legends.

Frontier Developments.
 - Tycoon.

Valve.
 - Counter Strike.
 - DOTA.
 - Alien Swarm.

Epic Games.
 - Unreal Tournament.

Stardock Entertainment.
 - Ashes of the Singularity.
 - Galactic Civilizations.
 - Sins of a Solar Empire.
 - Star Control.
 - Offworld Trading Company.

Paradox Interactive.
 - Imperator: Rome.
 - Hearts of Iron.
 - Europa Universalis.
 - Crusader Kings.

Triumph Studios.
 - Age of Wonders.

Taleworlds Entertainment.
 - Mount & Blade.

Blackbird Interactive.
 - Deserts of Kharak.

Amplitude Studios.
 - Endless Space.

Egosoft.
 - X: Beyond the Frontier, X2: The Threat, X3: Reunion, X4: Foundations.

Facepunch Studios.
 - Rust.
 - Garry's Mod.

Wargaming.
 - Master of Orion.
 - World of Tanks.

PC-Lead platform AAA multiplats:
 - Battlefield 5.
 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
 - Cyberpunk 2077.
 - Control.
 - Metro: Exodus.
 - Minecraft.
 - Watchdogs: Legion.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on...

My bad, I was obviously talking about the Xbox One. All games are designed on pc's. What I'm trying to say is that almost no major developer is focusing on pc gaming anymore. Meaning, we are no longer seeing games that are designed from the ground up with high-end pc specs in mind and that can't be ported to console anymore. A couple of generations ago this was different when you had games like Half-Life, Crysis, Morrowwind etc. that were a big leap beyond anything that was out on consoles at the time. I loved those days and I remember upgrading my gpu every 2 years back then.

However, now that consoles are basically pc's with fixed specs, all major developers top priority is making sure their games run as good as possible on consoles. You say the pc is settings the standard with things like Ray Tracing, but right now it's just a handful of patches on pc that only very few people actually get to enjoy. Next gen, however, we fill see Ray Tracing really become the standard as games will be designed from the ground up to take advantage of it. And if that means 95% of the steam users, who don't own a RTX, can't play it at comparable settings as the console version, then the developers simply won't care.

Not denying there is a huge market for pc and Switch games and I already said RTS games are best played on pc. But I'm talking about the $100m budget blockbuster games like the next GTA. Games that will be pushing these new consoles to its limits and that'll need to sell millions just to break even. I mean, why do you think Rockstar is taking so long to release their games to pc? 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 04 October 2019

goopy20 said:

Well, it's true that everybody has different standards. However console level is pretty much how developers meant their games to be played. If you have a pc that can run them at better settings and resolution, then that's great. But developers in general try to keep multiplatform games as equal as possible. Hence why high-end gpu's are overkill for anyone but a few of the gaming royalty, who can't enjoy a game unless it runs at 120fps in native 4k. 

goopy20 said:

This isn't rocket science people, the lead platform is PS4/XBO (fixed it for you) for most major AAA developers.

So to recap that:

Even if the base PS4/XBO version can't deliver stable 30 fps (or in other cases stable 60 fps) in some games, it is nevertheless pretty much how developers meant their games to be played.

If someone has a PC to run these games better, it is overkill for anyone but a few of the gaming royalty.

But if someone has PC to run games slightly worse than on PS4 or Xbox One (or slightly better than Xbox One but slightly worse than PS4), then it is a huge problem, even if the performance can be fixed with moving some sliders a notch to the left.

Oh, and of course developers in general try to keep multiplatform games as equal as possible, therefore the developers focus on the XBO as the (less powerful) lead platform and give parity between the XBO and PS4, ignoring the extra performance of the PS4, instead of trying to get the best out of both systems (or five systems including XBO S, PS4 Pro and XBO X)... because parity is more important and anything above is "overkill for anyone but a few of the console gaming royalty".

Got it.