| JEMC said:.
Because that's a way of explaining the possible difference between the graphics that each console will be able to give us. |
Agreed. All I'm saying is that it makes no sense to put standardized machines on the same page as a dynamically changing one.
We are not talking about some PC, we are talking the Hypothetical ideal PC.
| JEMC said:. The fact that game development have shifted towards console so much this gen, and it will keep this way next gen too, means that PC hardware isn't puched as hard as it was before, making your "the average gamer will not spend 200+$ every 18 months on a new GPU or CPU or Ram" sentence completely wrong. Anyone who owns a i5 2500K CPU or an HD7870 GPU can easily keep them for more than 3 years and still be able to play all the games at the same or better graphical options than their console counterparts. Heck, anyone with an HD4870 or GTX260 can still play all the actual games at a higher resolution, with better graphics or both things at the same time, and those cards are 5 years old! |
No, it's not wrong (at least not completely, since it was a top-of-my-head estimation) you do need some frequent upkeep, quite simply because your assumption that the average gamer has an i5 2500K CPU or an HD7870 is completely groundless and based on steam's statistics inaccurate. That's not widely adopted hardware. You insist on having a restricting definition of what the average gamer is just because it suits your argument.
HD4870 and GTX260 are 2008 cards, also over 200$ and will ONLY give a frame rate at high settings again on the baseless assumption that average gaming joe has 8GB ram and a quad-core CPU. You need constant upkeep because you always need the package, CPU, GPU, RAM. (the CPU is less critical of course but at least a quad core at this point is required)
