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

Forums - PC - Fable III Coming to PC

Slimebeast said:
Why would MS feel threatened by Steam?

2 potential reasons:

1. GFWL is mediocre compared to Steam. Valve are effectively creating a game platform which is indirectly in competition with the consoles. They sell games and get license fees, run community features similarly to Live and PSN for free and support mods whilst tying the games you buy to your account so you can just download and play your games anywhere. It's not big enough yet, but as MS have left a gap in the PC scene for the 360, they may fear that Valve and Steam can effectively form a monopoly on the PC & digital downloads section of the market. In doing so they may eventually become a direct competitor to their console business. This can also be very bad for MS if (a big if) Steam eventually supports streaming as it'll make their console hardware redundant.

2. Linked to 1, Steam has recently started to support Macs. They may be worried that this could give Apple more games support which could in turn lead to Apple having a greater marketshare.

These may seem silly but this is the company who entered the console market due to the distant threat Playstation had on PCs by bringing a user friendly computer into the living room.



Around the Network
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 haven't played Metro 2033 so I can't comment on that particular case, but my experience of multiplat games on my 8800GTS is that they tend to look better than there console equivalent. Even the games that use the same textures, I can usually up the AA and AF to higher than on the consoles. As for Crysis, I can run it 720P with most effects on high, some on medium and get a frame rate of about 30fps. It dips below 25 every now and then but it's still more impressive than anything on consoles currently.

Note that I'm running under DX9 with Windows XP. I haven't upgraded yet because I know Vista and Win 7 take up far more resources.



Scoobes said:
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 haven't played Metro 2033 so I can't comment on that particular case, but my experience of multiplat games on my 8800GTS is that they tend to look better than there console equivalent. Even the games that use the same textures, I can usually up the AA and AF to higher than on the consoles. As for Crysis, I can run it 720P with most effects on high, some on medium and get a frame rate of about 30fps. It dips below 25 every now and then but it's still more impressive than anything on consoles currently.

Note that I'm running under DX9 with Windows XP. I haven't upgraded yet because I know Vista and Win 7 take up far more resources.

Pretty much the exact same situation as me.  I bought a 8800 GTS about 30 months ago for $360.  I also stuck with XP and get better performance at higher settings than the console versions.  A bit annoying being stuck with DX9, but I'm planning a new build for sometime this year.



ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
ssj12 said:
mirgro said:
ssj12 said:
what is the benefit of releasing it on PC if they release it with such worthless software like GfwL? That software is buggy and bloated. Do not want, ever. And it will fail on PC because there isnt very many games that has ever been successful when attached to GfwL.

I like Dawn of War 2 perfectly fine. Though the GFWL aspect is absolue and utter trash and I really wish they had done somehing else for net play. Hell, even gamespy would have been better.

It's sad that it has come to the point where I think gamespy as a "pretty good" multiplayer provider. They have sucked hard ever since Bnet and Westwood Online came around. I also liked Heat.net a ton more until those bastards bought it out.

gamespy really cant even be called a service. I have maybe 4 games using their service downloaded through Steam. Just dont use their pos chat software and register a login you can remember your good.

Boarderlands=fucking nightmare

not really, for me anyways. Ive had a gamespy account since its connected to IGN. Only issue I've had is lag when online.

@mirgro - I love UT3.. I reviewed it for this site remember. PC version had the highest score out of the three versions with an 8.9.

we all have gamespy, the problem is to get borderlands working correctly online, it was the most stupid shit I've had to deal with in many years. I ended up having to open my computer completely to the outside so my friends can actually connect to me.



The only thing I'm worried about is the game being pirated, affecting sales



                                  

                                       That's Gordon Freeman in "Real-Life"
 

 

Around the Network

Wait a minute, how does Steam get publishers to sell their games on their sharing site anyway?



                                  

                                       That's Gordon Freeman in "Real-Life"
 

 

vlad321 said:
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.

First of all I am not surprised you get banned once a week since you are rude and completely lack human decency when posting.

Secondly, the bolded line applies to you here as I know for a fact that a stock GTX260 dips under 30 frames per second any time you have heavy gun fight with 5-6 dudes or are outside with a gas mask on. This is on high (not very high) and at 1680x1050.

And 9800GT is about 2 grades lower than a GTX260... With an 9800GT, I know that when you are in a tunnel walking with a buddy you can get up to 60 FPS...but when you go outside...heh not so much. Im guessing you lower the AA and are still most likely seeing frame rate drops in the low 20s (10s on Crysis) when the action heats up. Im sure its still quite playable, but with all those compromises, does it really "blow away" the consoles? Also, how would you know what Metro 2033 looks like on the 360?

But hey, I could be wrong and youve must have overclocked your card and are cooling it with liquid nitrogen or something...

 

 



disolitude said:
 

First of all I am not surprised you get banned once a week since you are rude and completely lack human decency when posting.

Secondly, the bolded line applies to you here as I know for a fact that a stock GTX260 dips under 30 frames per second any time you have heavy gun fight with 5-6 dudes or are outside with a gas mask on. This is on high (not very high) and at 1680x1050.

And 9800GT is about 2 grades lower than a GTX260... With an 9800GT, I know that when you are in a tunnel walking with a buddy you can get up to 60 FPS...but when you go outside...heh not so much. Im guessing you lower the AA and are still most likely seeing frame rate drops in the low 20s (10s on Crysis) when the action heats up. Im sure its still quite playable, but with all those compromises, does it really "blow away" the consoles? Also, how would you know what Metro 2033 looks like on the 360?

But hey, I could be wrong and youve must have overclocked your card and are cooling it with liquid nitrogen or something...

 

 

You are right there was a time where my game slowed to a crawl under 30, and that was only during the amoeba glowing balls in the silo. For some reason when they blow up my game would just stop. However other than that the 9800 GT devours the game on High. No slow downs aywhere else. I did average 15 FPS on the intro level once I made it just outside the tower on Very High but on High it was still over 30 FPS. I also neither overclock nor super cool it. Something must be worng on your end though, from the sound of it.

As for how it looks on the 360, my roommate finally decided to play it and he doesn't get enough time on my PC time to do any serious gaming anyhow. The game looks absolutely pathetic, have you seen the textures? I didn't take a close look, but the the post-processing effects were also very pathetic.

As for the bans, it's because I say that games this genereation are pretty shitty compared to previous generations, especially shooters compared to shooters on the PC.



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

 

Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
Why would MS feel threatened by Steam?

2 potential reasons:

1. GFWL is mediocre compared to Steam. Valve are effectively creating a game platform which is indirectly in competition with the consoles. They sell games and get license fees, run community features similarly to Live and PSN for free and support mods whilst tying the games you buy to your account so you can just download and play your games anywhere. It's not big enough yet, but as MS have left a gap in the PC scene for the 360, they may fear that Valve and Steam can effectively form a monopoly on the PC & digital downloads section of the market. In doing so they may eventually become a direct competitor to their console business. This can also be very bad for MS if (a big if) Steam eventually supports streaming as it'll make their console hardware redundant.

2. Linked to 1, Steam has recently started to support Macs. They may be worried that this could give Apple more games support which could in turn lead to Apple having a greater marketshare.

These may seem silly but this is the company who entered the console market due to the distant threat Playstation had on PCs by bringing a user friendly computer into the living room.

I am very sceptical of Steam being any competition to consoles or MS, but if it is true I hope Microsoft will response to this thread.