By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dahuman on 21 February 2014
Edit Thread
freedquaker said:
dahuman said:
freedquaker said:
Soundwave said:
Steambox will eat both the PS4/X1's lunch in terms of performance over time.


I have a thread which nobody saw, addressing this exact thing... Check it out

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=176643&page=1

 

It's a bit of strecth to say that steambox will eat the PS4 for lunch over time, considering that even the fastest PC cannot exceed the 1080p and 60 fps on a TV right now, and most games will not be optimized for it, BUT I maintain that it will be possible to have a very compact, Gamecube like Steambox with the performance of PS4 for less than $399 in a few years. From that point on, you'll have the convenience of a Console and the power of the PC in an inexpensive tiny box. This is what the steambox needs to go after.

Graphics Quality is highly overrated by the PC enthusiasts here. Yes, it matters, sometimes a lot, but it is not the only thing that matters. People also care about "convenience", "price", "simplicity". So a tiny, quite, inexpensive steambox with the performance of PS4, a large catalogue of forward and backward compatibility would be fantastic. Again the performance does not have to be perfect, 8th gen console level performance should be enough for starters as long as the price and convenience is there!

Let's be honest here though, do you really think they'd keep at 60FPS in a year or 2 with the top tier games? It's a cycle man, devs will try to hit 30FPS to bring out more impressive visuals, and if they are not doing that, it will be because of the X1 most likely with multiplats, PC games these days will only be as good as a little better than the best console version due to asset restrictions being consoles only(unless modded,) the fact is, these new consoles will be holding back the best possible graphics we can achieve with current tech  because they are running on 2+year old hardware in the category of raw performance comparisons. You don't even understand my dissapointment to learn the PS4 was rated at the level it's current at when they revealed it. Alas, it won't matter to me if TLoU2 turns out to be a good game, I'd buy a PS4 just for that.


I don't disagree with you, as you do have some valid points but it's not so simple to say that consoles hold back the PCs. That depends. In the first few years, they actually don't, but rather developers like it because it makes it easier for them to target a standard hardware and lower common denominator. This generation, the consoles are way ahead of the common PC (not talking about the new 2013-2014 PCs, but the average dating back to 5-10 years!), and they will not be holding the PCs at least for a few years ahead.

But down the road, in about 3-4 years, they start to hold back the PC. It's usually the PC platform itself that holds back the games because of so many different configurations and the old PCs in existence still actively used etc. Last generation, yes the consoles DID HOLD BACK the PCs because they lasted an unpredentedly long period, 7-8 years, so the last 2-3 years were a bit long on the tooth. But why did this happen? It's mostly because of the development costs, both for the game developers / publishers and the platform owners.

However, this generation, I believe it will be quite different simply because all consoles (but wii) now are based on x86 and other PC technologies, with really abundant RAM and everything. From one generation to another, things will simply be scaled up, as in from 1080p to 2160p or 30-60fps to 60-120fps or from 2xAA to 8xAA etc... So PCs will not be held back in that sense, you can simply just get the same game with higher resolution, frame rate, AA, finer detail, which was not possible before.

Also I believe, this generation is really a defining one because of its x86 legacy. Platform owners SHOULD keep it that way, transforming their platforms into supercharged propriety gaming PCs, which are backward compatible with the older games directly transferable. They need to create a scalable PC-like platforms, which will ease up platform cycles a lot, with immensely facilitated development (and programming) periods, and also by creating "network effects" and a "lock-in system" similar to the IOS and Android ecosystems, where your purchases are attached to your account, rather than the machine, and once you buy a game, it must be playable in all future iterations of the platform. So basically a game bought with PS X, must be playable with PS X, PS X+1, PS X+2 and so on, which will create high customer retention and loyalty. Actually the best candidate for this is STEAMBOX.

Nah the holding back will happen much faster this time around, just because it's more similar to PCs in a lot of ways, on the dev point of view, it's very beneficial this way, but it also means hitting diminishing returns will happen much faster because devs are more familiar with the general coding, and PC ports will run better in general from porting hence resulting in an even more noticeble performance improvement. What we will most likely see from PC ports are more tessellation and maybe some better assets is about it from ports, but pure console gamers will be wow'ed without problems on 30FPS console games because they don't really know what to expect from these hardwares since the 7th gen started in.... 2005...... so any jump seems big but that won't keep people like me from being disappointed because we know how much power modern gaming PCs really have, it doesn't matter though TBH, I have a PC anyways so I won't be envious about anything, and games matter the most, I mean hell, I have a fucking Wii U and I like the games just fine, this whole power talk with consoles is fun pass time is about it.