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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One 'to avoid all the debates and stuff'

Neodegenerate on 10 October 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said

This doesn't prove that televisions set the standards on resolutions. That was the point you were trying to make.

Also, your second source is very old, as the PC has been showing growth this year:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/10/09/gartner-growth-eu-us/1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20bit-tech%2Fall%20(bit-tech.net%20feed)

But even though the PC market is showing growth, it has nothing to do with what my point was. You're claiming that it's inconvenient for those to game on 4k televisions. My point was that, PC gamers have the choice to game on 4k resolutions if they so desire. Console gamers do not have a choice. PC games aren't restricted to 1080p. They can actually scale (I'm not talking uprez) to 4k resolutions. Some games even advertise as being playable in 4k resolutions. You can play Battlefield 4 in 4k resolutions right now. You can play Theif in 4k resolutions right now. You can play NBA 2k15, WatchDogs, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, etc. in 4k resolutions. I bet you had no idea, did you?

The guy I was originally replying to felt that the PS4 was the limit to how good graphics could look at 1080p. He feels that a person won't see much of a difference between a $400 dollar console and a $1100 PC on a 1080p television. This is pure ignorance, and shows that he clearly hasn't seen what PCs are bloody capable of. This is what PCs are capable of:

 

Anyway, I think you were right before. We're done here.


Actually the point I was making was that the mainstream audience won't care about 4k until it is on their TVs.  A point you have, as of yet, been unable to dispute.

The PC market showing growth this year is all well and good, but again doesn't address the point of TVs being the standard setters for the mainstream audience.

Yes I am aware that gamers on PC can play in 4k.  Congrats to you?

I am not the guy you initially argued with.  I am the guy who asked to see a computer you could buy, for $400.00, that would give you the same, or better, gaming experience than a PS4.  You then decided to show a computer that you could buy cheap, but still need to actually put a new vid card in.

But yes I am glad we can finally agree that, we are done here.

1) A point I haven't refuted because I don't care and nor have I argued this.

2) ** shrugs ** Don't care.

3) Yes. Congrats to me.

4) The video card we put in made it $400 bucks. Without the video card, it would be less than $250 bucks.

5) Indeed, we are.


4. Yet it still doesn't fit the criteria of open the box, plug it in, and play it.

5. Nah, I still wanna see you provide the item for #4 within the criteria requested.



Around the Network
QuintonMcLeod on 10 October 2014
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said

This doesn't prove that televisions set the standards on resolutions. That was the point you were trying to make.

Also, your second source is very old, as the PC has been showing growth this year:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/10/09/gartner-growth-eu-us/1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20bit-tech%2Fall%20(bit-tech.net%20feed)

But even though the PC market is showing growth, it has nothing to do with what my point was. You're claiming that it's inconvenient for those to game on 4k televisions. My point was that, PC gamers have the choice to game on 4k resolutions if they so desire. Console gamers do not have a choice. PC games aren't restricted to 1080p. They can actually scale (I'm not talking uprez) to 4k resolutions. Some games even advertise as being playable in 4k resolutions. You can play Battlefield 4 in 4k resolutions right now. You can play Theif in 4k resolutions right now. You can play NBA 2k15, WatchDogs, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, etc. in 4k resolutions. I bet you had no idea, did you?

The guy I was originally replying to felt that the PS4 was the limit to how good graphics could look at 1080p. He feels that a person won't see much of a difference between a $400 dollar console and a $1100 PC on a 1080p television. This is pure ignorance, and shows that he clearly hasn't seen what PCs are bloody capable of. This is what PCs are capable of:

 

Anyway, I think you were right before. We're done here.


Actually the point I was making was that the mainstream audience won't care about 4k until it is on their TVs.  A point you have, as of yet, been unable to dispute.

The PC market showing growth this year is all well and good, but again doesn't address the point of TVs being the standard setters for the mainstream audience.

Yes I am aware that gamers on PC can play in 4k.  Congrats to you?

I am not the guy you initially argued with.  I am the guy who asked to see a computer you could buy, for $400.00, that would give you the same, or better, gaming experience than a PS4.  You then decided to show a computer that you could buy cheap, but still need to actually put a new vid card in.

But yes I am glad we can finally agree that, we are done here.

1) A point I haven't refuted because I don't care and nor have I argued this.

2) ** shrugs ** Don't care.

3) Yes. Congrats to me.

4) The video card we put in made it $400 bucks. Without the video card, it would be less than $250 bucks.

5) Indeed, we are.


4. Yet it still doesn't fit the criteria of open the box, plug it in, and play it.

5. Nah, I still wanna see you provide the item for #4 within the criteria requested.


4/5) I don't believe you can. Most manufacturers that provided gaming PCs overcharge. If this is what you're trying to prove, then yes. You are right. The PS4 beats manufactured gaming PCs in price. Hands down. In specs? No, it doesn't.



Neodegenerate on 10 October 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:


4/5) I don't believe you can. Most manufacturers that provided gaming PCs overcharge. If this is what you're trying to prove, then yes. You are right. The PS4 beats manufactured gaming PCs in price. Hands down. In specs? No, it doesn't.

That is essentially what I was trying to prove.  The general gamer will buy the PS4/XB1/WiiU because it is a plug and play device.  They don't care about the resolutions as much as the "hardcore" gamer, and certainly not as much as the PC gamer.  The general gamer is also the target market.  That is all.

And I agree with your last question/statement as well.  You can certainly build a better PC than the PS4 for the same money if you shop around and are willing to do some of the heavy lifting yourself.  General gamers aren't willing to do that though.



QuintonMcLeod on 10 October 2014
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:


4/5) I don't believe you can. Most manufacturers that provided gaming PCs overcharge. If this is what you're trying to prove, then yes. You are right. The PS4 beats manufactured gaming PCs in price. Hands down. In specs? No, it doesn't.

That is essentially what I was trying to prove.  The general gamer will buy the PS4/XB1/WiiU because it is a plug and play device.  They don't care about the resolutions as much as the "hardcore" gamer, and certainly not as much as the PC gamer.  The general gamer is also the target market.  That is all.

And I agree with your last question/statement as well.  You can certainly build a better PC than the PS4 for the same money if you shop around and are willing to do some of the heavy lifting yourself.  General gamers aren't willing to do that though.


Unfortunately, the "general gamer" doesn't appear to be buying into the "consoles are more accessible" claus. The console market is declining  while the PC gaming market is growing. As a matter of fact, the PC market has out paced the console market by a few billion dollars this year:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/04/28/as-global-pc-game-revenue-surpasses-consoles-how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/



Neodegenerate on 10 October 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:


Unfortunately, the "general gamer" doesn't appear to be buying into the "consoles are more accessible" claus. The console market is declining  while the PC gaming market is growing. As a matter of fact, the PC market has out paced the console market by a few billion dollars this year:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/04/28/as-global-pc-game-revenue-surpasses-consoles-how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/


Yes, but that is also where you start to get into the definition of what style of game and target audience.  For example my father, a 61 year old man, spends a lot of time playing poker on his PC.  By the pure definition of "game" he is in the statistic.  For a company like Ubisoft, he isn't in the target demo since they don't expect him to be out buying AC:U on launch day.  The sales of a game like AC:U will be higher on consoles, at least initially - prior to steam sales and things of that nature.  Once they are higher initially on PC than they are on consoles, you will see the shift in companies building for the PC and then porting to console.

Also, the article you posted suggests that tablets are part of the PC group, skewing the numbers there.  In my opinion tablet and phone gaming should be it's own category.



Around the Network
Arkaign on 10 October 2014

Someone should make a kickstarter for a legal investigation of this situation. It's clearly something that defies any reasonable excuse.



QuintonMcLeod on 10 October 2014
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:


Unfortunately, the "general gamer" doesn't appear to be buying into the "consoles are more accessible" claus. The console market is declining  while the PC gaming market is growing. As a matter of fact, the PC market has out paced the console market by a few billion dollars this year:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/04/28/as-global-pc-game-revenue-surpasses-consoles-how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/


Yes, but that is also where you start to get into the definition of what style of game and target audience.  For example my father, a 61 year old man, spends a lot of time playing poker on his PC.  By the pure definition of "game" he is in the statistic.  For a company like Ubisoft, he isn't in the target demo since they don't expect him to be out buying AC:U on launch day.  The sales of a game like AC:U will be higher on consoles, at least initially - prior to steam sales and things of that nature.  Once they are higher initially on PC than they are on consoles, you will see the shift in companies building for the PC and then porting to console.

Also, the article you posted suggests that tablets are part of the PC group, skewing the numbers there.  In my opinion tablet and phone gaming should be it's own category.


Considering that the Steam's active user base grows about a quarter of a million every two quarters, I'd say it wouldn't be casual gamers that are contributing to the increase of the PC industry.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/steam-reaches-100-million-users-and-3-700-games/1100-6422489/

And here's another source for you if you didn't like the previous source:
http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/pc-games-have-surpassed-console-games-globally/033849

 



se7en7thre3 on 10 October 2014

UBI is taking too much heat , the Order 1886 devs are making similar statements.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-order-1886-runs-at-30fps-because-24fps-doesn-t-feel-good/1100-6419888/