By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Fable III Coming to PC

Why would MS feel threatened by Steam?



Around the Network
Scoobes said:
If it is released it'd be a bit weird, with the PC not having Fable 2 released yet. But it would make sense if MS are feeling a bit threatened by Steam, especially with the new Mac support. It's a shame GFWL is so crap. It completely ruined Fallout 3 for me, even though I got 100% acheivements on it.

Why GFWL ruined Fallot 3 for u? I don't believe u.



makingmusic476 said:
disolitude said:
mirgro said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
mirgro said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
vlad321 said:
I'd say great news. But Fable 1 was very boring. As for Fable 2, even when it was exclusive, was also very weak.

Nothing worthwhile has come out of Mlyneux for over a decade, I wish he'd just stfu, crawl in a hole and disappear already.

I wish you would too.

Except that in my short stay here and from the few posts he has made his are probably 10 times the quality of yours on average. This exchange is another perfectly good example of that. Molyneux hasn't done anything great since Dungeon Keeper, and I think that was 97 or 98, which is over a decaded now. Your repsonse to it however was nothing short of IQ-reducing idiocy. Unless you are 5 years old, then I am sorry for the offense since then you are just acting your natural age.

Oh my God, there's more of them. What attracts console hating PC fanboys to a console hardware and software sales tracking site I'll never know.

I take everything I said back, you do indeed seem to be 5, and I wonder how you are even able to read. Look at the title bar of this in your browser and tell me what comes up. In fact even the iPhone is up there.

 

@Garnett

My PC was $1k 2 or 3 years ago and it's far more powerfu than either of the consoles and it runs games that look far better. The components currently cost around $400 tops. Oh yeah, it also has a Blu-Ray burner before you start with that whole thing.

 

Umm...400 dollar today PC can not run games that are better looking than consoles.

I have a GTX295 video card and the damn thing alone cost me more than a PS3 would. Yes it runs Crysis maxed out at 30-40 frames per second and that looks better than any game on consoles...but my PC cost 1500 bucks to build.

If you want to run anything that totally blows away the consoles...you need to spend 1000 bucks at least. Hell, getting something middle of the road like a GTS250 or 4850 will put you in a hole 150 bucks...which is almost the price of the whole Xbox360 and it games won't look any better.

Try running Crysis Warhead on "Gamer" setting (don't even bother with enthusiast setting) with those cards and let me know how it turns out...

 

That's what you get for going bleeding edge.  I felt pretty silly when I spent $550 on a 7900gtx four years ago, and it was soundly trumped by cards that came out six months later.

Yeah, I bought the rival to 7900GTX, the Radeon X1900XT when it was brand new at $550 and then the 8800GTX came out and doubled the performance only 7 months later. I admit it felt a bit silly.



@disolitude:

I didn't say the GTX295 was trumped yet. And I paid under $130 for my card.

And I didn't need to upgrade my case, PSU, DVD drive, etc. Hell, you can buy one case and be set for a decade these days lol. I just did the mobo (Gigabyte board with Sata6.0, USB3.0, the works), CPU (Athlon II X4 635), GPU, RAM (4gb DDR3 @ 1066), and HDD (WD 1tb).

As for Crysis at 1080p, I suppose the framerate could've been under 30. My eyes aren't exactly the best judge of such things.



Slimebeast said:
Why would MS feel threatened by Steam?

What if Steam reckoned that the best way to make their platform OS-independent would be to help Wine's team to complete all the parts that matter for Steam games? Steam developers should perfectly know which parts of Windows APIs they use and how should be a 1:1 functional equivalent of them.

But thinking again about it, even if I were right, releasing Fable III on PC wouldn't have anything to do with that and couldn't  do anything to ward off this supposed threat.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Around the Network
Slimebeast said:
Scoobes said:
If it is released it'd be a bit weird, with the PC not having Fable 2 released yet. But it would make sense if MS are feeling a bit threatened by Steam, especially with the new Mac support. It's a shame GFWL is so crap. It completely ruined Fallout 3 for me, even though I got 100% acheivements on it.

Why GFWL ruined Fallot 3 for u? I don't believe u.

It did. There were times that i couldn't even sign in. It's even worse for multiplayer games like Dawn of War II.



makingmusic476 said:

@disolitude:

I didn't say the GTX295 was trumped yet. And I paid under $130 for my card.

And I didn't need to upgrade my case, PSU, DVD drive, etc. Hell, you can buy one case and be set for a decade these days lol. I just did the mobo (Gigabyte board with Sata6.0, USB3.0, the works), CPU (Athlon II X4 635), GPU, RAM (4gb DDR3 @ 1066), and HDD (WD 1tb).

As for Crysis at 1080p, I suppose the framerate could've been under 30. My eyes aren't exactly the best judge of such things.

Yeah, thats a cool price for that card. I'd put 2 of those in a crossfire stup and then we're talking :)

However, with that setup, would you say that the performance you are getting in games blows away the stuff consoles do? I was absent from PC gaming for a long time but when I decided to come back to it in late 2008 I went from HD4850 to GTS250 to GTX260 to finally GTX295 (cause of 3D vision)

I found that with the first 2 cards, I always had to make compromises with visuals which put the games I was playing visually to console levels.

The whole point of this debate is the fact that a user posted that his 400 dollar PC blows away the consoles and that hed rather play Fable 3 on PC...from personal experience I found that it really isn't the case. To blow away the consoles you need a 300 + dollar video card, which needs a 100 dollar power supply and a 100 dollar case to get proper cooling, you need a decent quad core CPU, the Ram needs to be low latency/high frequency...

Don't get me wrong, the PC arms race is fun, and it does blow away the PS360 but it can't be cheated and done for cheap...not possible.



disolitude said:
makingmusic476 said:

@disolitude:

I didn't say the GTX295 was trumped yet. And I paid under $130 for my card.

And I didn't need to upgrade my case, PSU, DVD drive, etc. Hell, you can buy one case and be set for a decade these days lol. I just did the mobo (Gigabyte board with Sata6.0, USB3.0, the works), CPU (Athlon II X4 635), GPU, RAM (4gb DDR3 @ 1066), and HDD (WD 1tb).

As for Crysis at 1080p, I suppose the framerate could've been under 30. My eyes aren't exactly the best judge of such things.

Yeah, thats a cool price for that card. I'd put 2 of those in a crossfire stup and then we're talking :)

However, with that setup, would you say that the performance you are getting in games blows away the stuff consoles do? I was absent from PC gaming for a long time but when I decided to come back to it in late 2008 I went from HD4850 to GTS250 to GTX260 to finally GTX295 (cause of 3D vision)

I found that with the first 2 cards, I always had to make compromises with visuals which put the games I was playing visually to console levels.

The whole point of this debate is the fact that a user posted that his 400 dollar PC blows away the consoles and that hed rather play Fable 3 on PC...from personal experience I found that it really isn't the case. To blow away the consoles you need a 300 + dollar video card, which needs a 100 dollar power supply and a 100 dollar case to get proper cooling, you need a decent quad core CPU, the Ram needs to be low latency/high frequency...

Don't get me wrong, the PC arms race is fun, and it does blow away the PS360 but it can't be cheated and done for cheap...not possible.

I wouldn't say blows away, but PC games certainly top their console counterparts.  And I'd blame that more on developers than the hardware these days.  Most multiplatform games are basically console games with a shoddy, unoptimized PC port (GTAIV, ACI/II). Crysis and Metro 2033 are the only two action games released that really try to push the limits of modern day PC hardware, but neither Crytek nor 4A Games (going by Stalker) are known for being great at optimization.  They mostly brute force there way to the desired image quality.  Valve on the other hand has always been known for producing excellent graphics on even weak hardware, but that doesn't seem to be a priority for them anymore, given L4D2's visuals when maxed.

One place where PC does still blow away consoles, however, is scale.  A 4v4 in Supreme Commander with 8000 units roaming around and nukes going off left and right is damn impressive, even three years after the game came out.  I haven't gotten around to trying any more recent RTS games like Napolean: Total War or Supreme Commander 2 (which I refuse to buy given it was gimped in both econ and scale), but I'm sure at least the former is even more impressive.

Supreme Commander was actually one of the main reasons I upgraded my PC, given the game is completely broken on a 32-bit OS.  It will inevitably break the 2gb RAM limit in larger matches, thus crashing unless you hack both the game and Windows itself to allow it to use virtual memory on your HDD.  RAM alone would prevent either ps3 or 360 from handling anything close to what is possible in the PC version of Supreme Commander.



Slimebeast said:
Scoobes said:
If it is released it'd be a bit weird, with the PC not having Fable 2 released yet. But it would make sense if MS are feeling a bit threatened by Steam, especially with the new Mac support. It's a shame GFWL is so crap. It completely ruined Fallout 3 for me, even though I got 100% acheivements on it.

Why GFWL ruined Fallot 3 for u? I don't believe u.

There were times when it wouldn't let me sign in and meant I couldn't access my saved games. It updated very slowly and a few times when it did update I had to reset my computer manually because it had frozen on me.

My biggest complaint about the game was that it used GFWL.



disolitude said:
Scoobes said:
disolitude said:

 

 

Umm...400 dollar today PC can not run games that are better looking than consoles.

I have a GTX295 video card and the damn thing alone cost me more than a PS3 would. Yes it runs Crysis maxed out at 30-40 frames per second and that looks better than any game on consoles...but my PC cost 1500 bucks to build.

If you want to run anything that totally blows away the consoles...you need to spend 1000 bucks at least. Hell, getting something middle of the road like a GTS250 or 4850 will put you in a hole 150 bucks...which is almost the price of the whole Xbox360 and it games won't look any better.

Try running Crysis Warhead on "Gamer" setting (don't even bother with enthusiast setting) with those cards and let me know how it turns out...

 

Isn't the GTX295 known for being a bit overpriced (as well as very powerful). I thought you could get a near equivalent ATI card for a lot cheaper, which would also bring down the cost of your PC. Also, don't forget that for the price you also get a lot more functionality than just better graphics. It all depends on what you want. I know I couldn't survive without a PC, so it's convenient for me to use it for a lot of my games too.


The ATI's equivalent card to that is 4870x2. You really can't find those for sale any more but if you do...they will be about 500 bucks.

http://ncix.com/products/?sku=222278827&vpn=EAH4870X2%2FHTDI%2F2G%2FA&manufacture=ASUS%20TeK

There really isn't a cheap option. Games that are developped for consoles and Pc at the same time are more sensible...and can be enjoyed with lesser video graphics hardware...but those PC games don't blow away the console ports in visuals unless they are played on very high settings, which low end video cards can't do. Games that do showcase PC superiority...like Crysis, Metro 2033...unless you spend 300 bucks on the video card alone, forget it.  A graphics card under 150 bucks won't be able to run Metro 2033 at its lowest settings at 30 frames per second @ 720p. Frame rate will be in the low 20s and that is pretty unplayable in my eyes. And I can guarantee you that the 360 version of Metro 2033 looks better than a PC version running on ATI4650 or 9600GT video cards.

I don't know what you are talking about but you are full of shit.

I have a single 9800 GT for 80 bucks and I am running Metro 2033 on High, not Very high, and it has been consistently above 30 FPS. I was also running at 1620x1050 or whatever. So no, Metro 2033 High which makes the 360 versoin look like a pile of shit, runs perfectly fine on an $80 card.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835