| kber81 said: PC hardware can be upgraded any time. It's the biggest asset and the biggest curse same time. No1 optimizes games for PC - software propels hardware sale. Most of games should have much lower recommended hardware specification. If you are lucky enough to stay in this race - good for you. You own the most sophisticated gaming machine on earth (pretty narrow selection of games though IMHO). Let's face the truth - only handful of PC gamers owns truly high-end machines. Right now PS3 is much more powerful than average PC (10 times?) while Wii is much weaker. This situation will change during upcoming years but right now PS3 provides the best experience not only for $500 price tag. |
Of course game devs optimize games for PCs!
That's why the same game can be played across a plethora of configurations. That's why games like Crysis (or Half-Life2 and Doom 3) engines are designed to handle rigs ranging from 2-3 years old to rigs that aren't even on market today.
I don't see why you consider playing games on a PC to be a hardware upgrade "race". I normally only upgrade once a year on performance parts (CPU, GPU) - what I upgrade much more is with storage, but this is normal, given a PC's inherent usage.
If you are talking about a narrow range of games: Go to the ESRB and check the games for all consoles vs the number of games available on the PC alone. The PC has about the same number of titles - around 6,500 - compared to consoles, which number close to 7,000 - but keeping in mind it's the total number of consoles, both past and present!
If you want to face the truth, there is a healthy PC performance market; otherwise, why would companies like Dell purchase companies like Alienware if it didn't make business sense? Why is it that boutique vendors like Voodoo can get away with selling computer right that cost north of 17,000USD, yet can get away with it - and survive as a company? Why is it that computer parts keep on getting faster and faster while maintaining the same price points? It's because people do buy these parts, and Nvidia laughs all the way to the bank, and AMD buys out ATI so they can continue one-upping each other in performance.
And about th PS3 being 10x faster than an average PC: I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I can't see how a PS3 can provide me with the tools I need to work, for instance. I don't see how I could multitask Photoshop CS2, Firefox with 15 tabs open, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Powerpoint, Office (Word and Powerpoint) and Lotus Notes all on at the same time, with a PS3 with equal speed, let alone faster.
