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

Forums - General - Epic Games - Consoles have left PC games behind

Onyxmeth on 11 March 2008

You can't sell a gaming PC to an average customer. There in lies the problem. When a customer wants to play Halo 3, they go to the store and pickup a 360 and Halo 3. They get home and the game works. You go to the same store and spend $600-$800 on a Dell/Gateway/whatever PC, buy Crysis and it probably doesn't play...at all. The problem is a ready made gaming PC that gets advertised, like Alienware and crap like that costs in the thousands, anywhere from $1000-$4000. This is what gets advertised in every gaming magazine in the country. If someone were to manufacture and advertise these $600 gaming PCs, I'm sure PC gaming would see a bit of a resurgence. How can you expect people to pick up DVD players with DVDS, CD players with CDs, Gaming consoles with games and then expect those same people to understand how to build a computer to optimize it for gaming? It doesn't gel with the buying habits of consumers. They want ready-made packages sitting on shelves with a price tag. Fix that issue and PC gaming will see better sales.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Around the Network
SnesTea on 12 March 2008
MattAAron said:
Well speaking from personal experience, Ive been into PC Gaming for well over over a decade, started with Burger Time/DigDug... to Keen Commander/Duke Nukem I... to SpaceQuest/KingsQuest/PoliceQuest/LeisureSuitLarry... to Carmageddon/GTA/TexMurphy... then Duke3D/Quake/Unreal Tournament...

I used to always prefer PC Gaming over Console gaming, simply because the graphics were incredibly better (Gaming at 1024x720+), the keyboard was tons better, and PC Online dominated consoles

Unfortunetly all thats has turned around for me...Consoles are finally powerful enough to display 720p, Controllers are finally good enough to play a 3D Shooter, and online console gaming is finally here

Another reason I have switched to console gaming is comfort. Sure I can game at a higher resolution on a PC, sure a mouse has better accuracy...but I would sacrifice a little control/accuracy and only 720p graphics just for the comfort of gaming with a small controller in my hand, leaning back on a couch, in front of a big hdtv...compared to hunched over a desk staring at a monitor

So for me its comfort
  
 
Ah 720p. It sucks because it's not that great! My monitor maxes out at a cool 1440 x 990. It's beautiful. Super high end computers can max out at 2560 x 1680 which is far better than 1024 x 720 (which PCs have been able to do for years). 
               
 
        

 



MattAAron on 12 March 2008

snesboy, I do agree 720p sucks compared to 1600x1200 and higher, but like I said, I would sacrifice that for comfort :|



SnesTea on 12 March 2008

I wouldn't!

And besides! My chair is really comfy :)



shio on 12 March 2008
MattAAron said:
snesboy, I do agree 720p sucks compared to 1600x1200 and higher, but like I said, I would sacrifice that for comfort :|

Thing is, you can just as easily set up a PC to play on your TV and play it leaned back. The only disadvantage is that you wouldn't be able to play laid down unless, of course, you switched to a PC gamepad instead.

http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
Garcian Smith on 12 March 2008
shio said:
Garcian Smith said:
MattAAron said:
Money was never the issue for me... and I don't think its an issue for PC Gamers. When you go into PC Gaming, you know your going to have to spend money to stay there...Just like buying a high-end sports car, you know you'll have to spend thousands and thousands just to keep that car

Most console gamers probably spend $400 every 4-6 years... (Yes I know some of you have 2 or 3 consoles, I'm just talking majority)

Compared to most PC Gamers who spend $300-$1000+ every year upgrading their PC's to play current games...Which I don't think any of them really complain about it, I think its more of a hobby for most gamers in a way... Like buildling a car, always want something better, faster, etc

I don't think money is the real issue why PC Gaming has died... I think Consoles are getting so much better with features/specs to the point where they can just about compete with PC Gaming finally... PC Gaming you will always have to upgrade your PC, this is how its always has been, and always will be...something that PC Gamers know and accept... and they are fine with it...

This is pretty much my take on it. Consoles have always received PC ports, but they've very seldom been powerful enough to run them well; while PCs received Half-Life in 1998, for example, and could play it in 768p, it took three years for console gamers to get it, and then they had to play it in 480i with horrible jaggies on the PS2. Nowadays, the PS3 and 360 can achieve HD resolutions that are pretty much indistinguishable from those that a top-of-the-line gaming PC can muster, and PC/PS3/360 cross-platform titles look pretty much the same across the board.

And with most major big-budget games nowadays going the PS360PC route, it makes more sense foreveryone but "power users" (the type who would have a gaming PC in the first place) to pay $350 for a 360 or $400 for a PS3 that will last 5 years, rather than $600+ for a gaming PC that will have obsolete parts a year from its purchase. (Or they could just get a $250 Wii, but we won't discuss that here. =P )


You are wrong, consoles were always ahead of PC in terms of graphics at the beginning of each generation, and it always took a couple of years for the PC to surpass consoles. The reason Half-Life couldn't be released in 1998 on consoles was because the current console generation (PS1/SS/N64) was nearing it's end, with PC having already surpassed on graphics. Valve could only wait for the next gen to kick in.

But the console gen we are now is different. This is the first time the consoles didn't surpass the PC at the beginning, and in just a year the PC has already reached limits that the Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 will never reach..... Crysis and Settlers 6.

 

 

No, I think you're the one who has it backwards. Half Life came out around November(?) of 1998, which was around the midpoint of the generation. At the time, it blew away anything on the N64, not to mention the PS1, both of which displayed in 320x240. (Whose idea was it to jump right to 3D when console hardware couldn't even display in 480i yet, anyway?) On top of that, the PS1 and N64 were both about equal to what a top-of-the-line gaming PC could produce when they came out - albeit in the aforementioned shitty resolution.

And don't tell me that the X360 was surpassed by gaming PCs in 2005, or the PS3 surpassed by them in 2006. The games themselves may not have shown the system's true power back then, but even now in 2008, both are running PS360PC titles with about the same level of graphical detail as the PC is. (And just look at the system requirements for some of those games; like, say, Assassin's Creed. It's really impressive what the 360 and PS3 can do with their hardware specs, in comparison to PCs.)

PCs can still run things in higher resolution, but really, who's going to notice the difference between 1080p via HDMI and 1200p via DVI? That difference is a long ways away from the difference between the 240i via composite and 768p via VGA divide of yesteryear.

And don't even get me started on Crysis. When top-of-the-line, just-built gaming PCs can only barely run a game, then it's obvious that two-year-old console hardware can't.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

SnesTea on 12 March 2008

High-end PCs get replaced every 18 months, not every year.

Not to mention that PS1 and N64's resolutions (320x240) weren't bad. High Definition didn't exist back then (in fact, it really didn't exist until like late 2002)



shio on 12 March 2008
Garcian Smith said:
shio said:
Garcian Smith said:
MattAAron said:
Money was never the issue for me... and I don't think its an issue for PC Gamers. When you go into PC Gaming, you know your going to have to spend money to stay there...Just like buying a high-end sports car, you know you'll have to spend thousands and thousands just to keep that car

Most console gamers probably spend $400 every 4-6 years... (Yes I know some of you have 2 or 3 consoles, I'm just talking majority)

Compared to most PC Gamers who spend $300-$1000+ every year upgrading their PC's to play current games...Which I don't think any of them really complain about it, I think its more of a hobby for most gamers in a way... Like buildling a car, always want something better, faster, etc

I don't think money is the real issue why PC Gaming has died... I think Consoles are getting so much better with features/specs to the point where they can just about compete with PC Gaming finally... PC Gaming you will always have to upgrade your PC, this is how its always has been, and always will be...something that PC Gamers know and accept... and they are fine with it...

This is pretty much my take on it. Consoles have always received PC ports, but they've very seldom been powerful enough to run them well; while PCs received Half-Life in 1998, for example, and could play it in 768p, it took three years for console gamers to get it, and then they had to play it in 480i with horrible jaggies on the PS2. Nowadays, the PS3 and 360 can achieve HD resolutions that are pretty much indistinguishable from those that a top-of-the-line gaming PC can muster, and PC/PS3/360 cross-platform titles look pretty much the same across the board.

And with most major big-budget games nowadays going the PS360PC route, it makes more sense foreveryone but "power users" (the type who would have a gaming PC in the first place) to pay $350 for a 360 or $400 for a PS3 that will last 5 years, rather than $600+ for a gaming PC that will have obsolete parts a year from its purchase. (Or they could just get a $250 Wii, but we won't discuss that here. =P )


You are wrong, consoles were always ahead of PC in terms of graphics at the beginning of each generation, and it always took a couple of years for the PC to surpass consoles. The reason Half-Life couldn't be released in 1998 on consoles was because the current console generation (PS1/SS/N64) was nearing it's end, with PC having already surpassed on graphics. Valve could only wait for the next gen to kick in.

But the console gen we are now is different. This is the first time the consoles didn't surpass the PC at the beginning, and in just a year the PC has already reached limits that the Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 will never reach..... Crysis and Settlers 6.

 

 

No, I think you're the one who has it backwards. Half Life came out around November(?) of 1998, which was around the midpoint of the generation. At the time, it blew away anything on the N64, not to mention the PS1, both of which displayed in 320x240. (Whose idea was it to jump right to 3D when console hardware couldn't even display in 480i yet, anyway?) On top of that, the PS1 and N64 were both about equal to what a top-of-the-line gaming PC could produce when they came out - albeit in the aforementioned shitty resolution.

And don't tell me that the X360 was surpassed by gaming PCs in 2005, or the PS3 surpassed by them in 2006. The games themselves may not have shown the system's true power back then, but even now in 2008, both are running PS360PC titles with about the same level of graphical detail as the PC is. (And just look at the system requirements for some of those games; like, say, Assassin's Creed. It's really impressive what the 360 and PS3 can do with their hardware specs, in comparison to PCs.)

PCs can still run things in higher resolution, but really, who's going to notice the difference between 1080p via HDMI and 1200p via DVI? That difference is a long ways away from the difference between the 240i via composite and 768p via VGA divide of yesteryear.

And don't even get me started on Crysis. When top-of-the-line, just-built gaming PCs can only barely run a game, then it's obvious that two-year-old console hardware can't.


PS1 and Sega Saturn launched 1994/95, over 3 years before Half-Life. And even though N64 was released "just" 2 years before Half-Life, Nintendo's console was at the time not as technologically solid compared to the PC's as Saturn was in 1994/95, which is why N64 was priced at a lower launch price than Saturn's and even PS1's.
It was bound for N64 to get outdated faster than PS1 or SS, in terms of technology.

In 2005 there was F.E.A.R on PC. No other console game have better graphics.
In 2006 there was Oblivion on PC. No other console game had better graphics.
In 2007 PC actually surpassed the limit of Xbox 360 and PS3. And there was Crysis, Settlers 6, etc...
This gen, no console will ever reach Crysis' amazing visuals. It would be luck if it even went near high settings at the same scope.

Assassin's Creed is not a well optimized game, it has worse requirements than Crysis.

And how many games will actually scale 1080p? The more complex visuals they have this gen, the worse resolution they will have in average. Hell, alot of games are already coming out at lower res: Halo 3 and COD4 only have around 600p (which is the current lowest resolution for PC games).

Dude, a 2/3 years old PC can run Crysis at a playable framerate. Hell, even my over 5 and half years old PC can run Crysis, albeit at lowest settings. You don't need a top-end PC to play Crysis, and a 700$ PC or 350$ Upgrade or <200$ GPU can still give you an experience that consoles can't match, at High Settings.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Cheebee on 12 March 2008

The mainstream PC user doesn't play games on it because they have a choice between FP Shooters and World of Warcraft.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

MattAAron on 12 March 2008
shio said:
MattAAron said:
snesboy, I do agree 720p sucks compared to 1600x1200 and higher, but like I said, I would sacrifice that for comfort :|

Thing is, you can just as easily set up a PC to play on your TV and play it leaned back. The only disadvantage is that you wouldn't be able to play laid down unless, of course, you switched to a PC gamepad instead.

I actually have my PC setup to my HDTV with my wireless keyboard and mouse (btw i highly suggest doing it, its amazing looking at windows on a huge hdtv!)

Even though I have that setup, nothing beats the comfort of a controller (personally)...when I use my PC on my HDTV I have to have my mouse sitting on a flat surface, with my keyboard on my lap which after a while gets uncomfortable so I often switch between sitting down, laying down on my stomach, on my back, etc... I just can't game unless I had a table setup, which defeats the purpose of comfort for me

With a controller, well things are a lot easier, I can sit/lay however I want...

Although, If my Wii remote was used as a mouse, that would kick butt :)

But hey this is just me