Conina said:
We don't even have to click on the URL to see the big flaw in your argument: "at retail" Who buys PC games at retail if there is no advantage over the digital version? For the cheap plastic box? And for the developers and publishers the digital versions are much more profitable (smaller cut for the platform owners than for the retail chain, less transport costs, no resales). |
Some PC retail boxes just include a box with a redeemable download CD Key inside that you redeem on Steam. I kid you not. Haha
| Conina said: The "Low-Spec gamer" even managed to get "Control" running with 30+ fps on a cheap dual-core APU: That is insanely impressive scalability. |
I wouldn't be surprised to be honest, that's damn impressive eitherway.
| goopy20 said: I never once complained about pc component longevity. |
But that is your argument when you essentially stated that unless you have a Geforce 2080, that your PC might as well end in the bin.
Do I need to bring more quotes out? Talk about disingenuous...
| goopy20 said: I'm sounding like a broken record but literally the only thing I'm saying is that minimum pc requirements will go up next gen. I know I will not be able to get the same experience on my 1060GTX compared to the next gen console versions and I'm perfectly fine with that. Maybe some games will still run (some no doubt run better than others) but who wants to be gaming like that? If I spend $60 on a game and have it running like this: (AC Oddysey running on a 5850) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLZiJcmi1z0, then for me it would be a clear sign that I'm in need of an upgrade. Even if some games still run fine. |
Here we go again... He pulled out another game to try and shift the goal post.
1) Get a Radeon 5870. (He is using a Radeon 5850.)
2) Overclock said Radeon 5870. (Most can do 950/1250 over the stock 900/1225 {Core/Mem} if not more.)
3) Drop settings to low. (Video is using medium.)
4) Drop resolution back to 900P or maybe even 720P (Video is using 1080P, Xbox One is 792P.)
5) Profit.
But you know what is amazing? That a GPU from 10 years ago is running that game at all, there is still room to improve the experience.
I bet a GPU that is a year newer like the Radeon 6970 with it's 2GB buffer would probably be fine running the game at 1080P.
The lesser 6950 (With a heap of Medium settings again):
| goopy20 said: Obviously, next gen games will work fine on lower hypothetical future cards like a 3060RTX, which will likely perform the same as a 2080RTX. |
Umm. Think lower than a hypothetical RTX 3060.
RTX 3030/RTX 3050/RTX 3050 Ti... And maybe the RTX 3060. - They will likely all have fillrates and memory buffers that come up short against the RTX 2080, nVidia never makes a high-end GPU a low-end one in a single generation these days.
| goopy20 said: I already said that a minimum requirement of a RX5700/ 2700RTX is pretty steep right now, but 4 years from now those cards will be relics on pc and you can probably buy a used 2070RTX for like $99. |
Doesn't matter what you said.
Let's take Polaris... That released in 2016 as the Radeon RX 480 8GB.
Next year it will be 4 years old... It's still a very capable mid-range part.
AMD later rebadged it as the RX 580, then ported the design over to 12nm, increased clocks and called it the RX 590, those GPU's are not going to suddenly become incapable of gaming next year.
| goopy20 said: It's also irrelevant if pc has, or hasn't got a better SSD. What's important is that next gen games will be designed from the ground up to take full advantage of SSD, meaning bigger streaming worlds and basically zero load times. This also means that a 1tb SSD will be the bare minimum in the near future. |
Umm. The PC is the domain of MMO's. - It has lots of big worlds that get streamed in.. And that was happening before SSD's became mainstream.
But just because you have fast storage doesn't mean you will have zero load times, load times being eliminated is not guaranteed for next-gen, don't drink the propaganda kool-aid being pushed out, it's up to the developers in the end... Just like 1080P/4k on the current consoles.
Games still need to compile shaders, decompress textures and games that use procedural generations... Need to procedurally generate... And such tasks are often held back by the CPU or GPU rather than the storage subsystem and thus a loading screen is still a requirement in some scenarios.
SSD's on PC will be faster than the Playstation 5, in games that are held back by sequential memory transfers into DRAM, the PC will beat consoles... Fast SSD's aren't a replacement for RAM, which the PC also has more of.
In short you can eliminate load times on PC today... When the above aren't factors.
Those are the real facts.
| goopy20 said: Also, things like the ps4 pro and Xbox One X have the same problem that high end pc's are having. Nobody is going to make a game that takes full advantage of the hardware. Instead you get the same games as the base consoles with just some added resolution. Which is nice but really not that noticeable when you're gaming on a tv. That is why I'm hoping that next gen console games will not be targeting native 4k as the new standard. That would be a massive waste of resources. Instead I would much rather see 1080p with a huge boost in overall graphical fidelity. |
The Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro often only use medium-quality PC equivalent settings... Which don't stray significantly far from the base consoles. - But because their hardware is only mid-range, developers tend to sink all the extra headroom into driving resolution/framerates.
High-end PC's actually get used, they get higher resolutions, higher framerates, better texturing, lighting, shadowing, effects and more.
Next-gen consoles the resolution will be entirely up to the developers, just like this generation, on PC you can choose.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
