pezus said:
ManUtdFan said:
That's exactly why I think PC gaming - unless you have a very high end rig - is often a complete mess. Playing Battlefield Bad company 2 for PC, the framerate can go up to 150 fps. But other times there's horrible slowdown when it struggles to reach 60 fps. For some reason 30 fps looks horrible on PC (i.e. unless the fps counter is not in sync with the in-game action) say compared to PS3. Why so? Modest PC specs aside, should any game really drop from 150 to 15 fps within seconds??
Then there's Pro Evolution Soccer 2013 on PC, which runs at its native 60 fps quite easily and should suit the 60 hz monitor I'm using. But then, unbelievably, tearing becomes apparent here and there - HOW? So I have to use V-sync, triple buffering and DxTory at 58-60 fps, just to be sure the tearing's removed and hopefully with no addition to input lag. It's damn messy. Console gaming has much better convenience and so next gen consoles will always have wider global appeal and better game sales than PC.
|
But the vast majority of console games suffer from frame rate drops and tearing. At least on the PC you have the ability to lower the settings to get a smoother framerate, use vsync and framelimiters to get rid of the horrible tearing etc.
And the PC market actually has a far more global appeal than the console market, since PC is HUGE in Asia (minus Japan), big in Europe, and medium sized in USA and combined makes more than all console combined WW.
|
I play said Battlefield game on both PC and PS3. On PC I have all settings on low in addition to v-sync, triple buffering and framerate limited to 58. I still get massive problems. I'm assuming the weak link in my hardware is the dual core cpu. That said I still find the in-game frame rate changes ridiculous. On PS3, very little slowdown even though less than 30 fps, and no tearing that I've noticed. It runs so much better.
PC game sales don't add up to what current gen sales manage.
