Bofferbrauer on 25 July 2015
| czecherychestnut said: If consoles didn't exist many PC gamers would just complain about the legion of HP Pavilion and Dell Inspiron users rocking 4 yr old integrated graphics and dual core Celeron's holding back PC gaming. Sure, you can build PC's that would smoke the average console these days, but the average PC is far weaker than current consoles. Just look at the latest Steam hardware survey (which is skewed towards higher end PC's anyway due to its gaming nature). Most common GPU? Intel HD 4000 series. Most common CPU? Dual core between 2.3 and 2.9 GHz. Its not consoles holding PC gaming back like some people claim, its PC users themselves because for every i7, GTX980Ti toting gamer complaining about cr*ppy consoles holding back his eye candy, there is 4-5 PC gamers rocking their parents HD4000 Dual core Celeron with 2 GB of RAM PC. Developers want to maximise their audience, and game engines can only be made scalable up til a point, so it makes little sense for a developer to make a game so graphically challenging that the bulk of PC gamers can't play it. |
Not true. Loads of Office PCs (most of them at homes, but I found Steam installed on many PCs at workplaces) and Ultrabooks have Steam installed for some older or casual games. Especially the latter generally still come with a dualcore and only HD Graphics. My dad, for instance, has steam installed on his notebook soely for some old pinball games and match 3 variants. My mother hasn't even used Steam once, but it came preinstalled on her convertible notebook.
I have Steam installed on 2 PCs, a modern one and a retro one. The latter naturally is very unimpressive (Core 2 Duo E4300 and GeForce 7800GT and no, there's no zero too much, it's that old!) but enough for some retro and indie games I got there. But these also contribute to the list.
