DigitalDevilSummoner said:
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.
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)
|
Where are you going with this?
Superchunk simply used the basic PC settings (Low for WiiU, Mid for XBone, High for PS4 and Ultra for an expensive top model PC) for the average core PC title as a way of explaining the relative differences between the consoles next gen.
I'm not sure what your argument is. A significant number of people that decide to game on PC may well have average hardware with basic GPUs and simple RAM but then these are still capable of playing many games. At the other extreme you have core PC gamers who frequent forums and build their PCs out of the best hardware for their budget. As a platform it encompasses all.
A little off topic but FYI: Before I upgraded my PC (about 2 yrs ago now) I had an old AMD dual core with an HD 4850 and only 2Gb of RAM. It was still capable of playing most games on High settings at 720 resolution. Games looked better than their console equivalents and other than the CPU heavy games (e.g. Dragon Age Origins, GTA IV), they played relatively smoothly.
