| Intrinsic said: Here's is a question, and one that I have asked as an example in this thread already. If I gave you a game (call of duty:AW) on PC and told you to find out two things; (1) Which sub $200 PC GPU runs it the best from every sub $200 GPU out there and (2) which sub $600 PC GPU runs it the best, What results would you end up with and how best would you arrive at those results? What I am basically saying, is that the method you use to arrive at the solutions to the above problem, should also apply if anyone is comparing a game running on a PC to console. Unless of course you can tell me why anyone in their right mind will compare the same game running on a sub $150 GPU to a $500+ GPU. And I don't thik anyone compares the PS4 to the PS3 to see which one will run the same game better. The value of the console (which one has more games for it and apps) yes those comparisons may be made. But that is not the point of this thread. |
In that case I think this topic which critiques a certain comparison is too disconnected from the context of the discussion it is trying to analyze. People use both comparisons (the one you presented and the one I presented) in different contexts. Usually I see the "PC games can perform better anyway" only when there is a comparison between different consoles, such as say: PS4 vs. Wii U or PS3 vs. XB360. Yes, within this framework it is fair to say that a PC game performs better (as a general statement) because the same logic was used for the PS4 vs. Wii U or PS3 vs. 360. Then one might argue that the PS4 has a better cost per (say) tflop than the Wii U has, and the same argument can be made for PC vs. PS4 (after some point.) So none of these comparisons are limited to the PC vs. Console debate, they are found between console gamers as well. Nevertheless, there is another context in which PC gamers and console gamers argue about performance "which is the cheaper platform to play games on." Never is it really, "which is the cheaper platform to run COD at 1080p 2xAA on."I don't think I've ever seen a discussion that limits itself to that. The other considerations are always there as well. The performance argument is just one of many and it targets a specific audience of gamers anyway (hardcore graphics whores.) The mother who is deciding whether or not to get her kid a console or a gaming pc (which never would happen in the first place) isn't thinking about 1080p 16x MSAA and neither is the bro-gamer to be honest. The entire discussion is relevant to the subset of the gaming population who will buy many games and who will be persuaded to spend $100/$200 more for 60fps or 1440p, just like they will spend $70 more for 1080p vs. 720p gaming (among other things.) My main point: I think it is important to understand the context in which these comparisons are made.
