Historically, not much has changed. Inevitably, the PC always "pulls ahead" but it doesn't seem to make console games worse than PC games. Games will continue to to games and gamers will continue to play them. When the NES was out I was still playing Arkanoid and Zork on my computer. When the N64 was out I was still playing Baldurs Gate and Diablo. No platform will suffer from the growing hardware difference in PCs.

thekitchensink said: sc94597 said: zero129 said: Just to put a quick end to this.. The same thing that's happened every other gen...Nothing.. Both the PS3 and 360 will still be getting great games, just like it's been in every other gen. Ok here are the top rated games for 360. http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp Title Plat Company Reviews Avg. Vote Avg Score 1. Grand Theft Auto IV X360 Rockstar Games 71 8.3 97.230% 2. The Orange Box X360 EA Games 56 9.1 96.300% 3. BioShock X360 2K Games 93 9.3 95.387% 4. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare X360 Activision 77 9.1 94.155% 5. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 105 9.2 93.840% 6. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 112 8.7 93.750% 7. Halo 3 X360 Microsoft Game Studios 89 8.5 93.442% 8. Rock Band X360 MTV Games 57 7.0 92.727% 9. Guitar Hero II X360 RedOctane 62 8.1 92.253% 10. Mass Effect X360 Microsoft Game Studios 80 9.2 9 2 Pc port 3 Pc port 4 Pc port 5 Pc port 6 Was made for a console first, then more than a year later a PC version came out. That is 4/10 games we wouldn't have if the pc set itself apart.   Also, how do you know that the games wouldn't have been developed for consoles first?  Even if PCs become more far more powerful, what makes you think devs will just 'stop' making console games, when console games on average sell far more?

yes , but the xbox 360 was more powerful than the average high end gaming pc at the time, so epic put the game to show off unreal engine 3s features. And no just less ports of pc games, which most of the userbase of each console  seems to like.

 

Also btw at the people who say the consoles will produce more sales than the pc tell that to the thousands of developers developing pc games.

@ People who say look to the past, I believe there has never been consoles out yet that relied so much on pc ports than the Xbox 360 and to a lesser extent the ps3. 

The only reason PC gaming isn't number one platform or will ever be is the cost of hardware. In PC gaming you have to upgrade your hardware every 12-18 months. That isn't something people want to do or can afford for that matter.

With the price of high-end video cards exceeding the price of the PS3 and 360 (combined). There is a reason consoles stay the number one form of gaming.

XGamer0611 said: The only reason PC gaming isn't number one platform or will ever be is the cost of hardware. In PC gaming you have to upgrade your hardware every 12-18 months. That isn't something people want to do or can afford for that matter. With the price of high-end video cards exceeding the price of the PS3 and 360 (combined). There is a reason consoles stay the number one form of gaming.

 But the consols rely alot on pc games. There is no doubt the pc games will stay on pc as the developement costs are cheaper, and the software sales are pretty good for the install base. 

sc94597 said: XGamer0611 said: The only reason PC gaming isn't number one platform or will ever be is the cost of hardware. In PC gaming you have to upgrade your hardware every 12-18 months. That isn't something people want to do or can afford for that matter. With the price of high-end video cards exceeding the price of the PS3 and 360 (combined). There is a reason consoles stay the number one form of gaming. But the consols rely alot on pc games. There is no doubt the pc games will stay on pc as the developement costs are cheaper, and the software sales are pretty good for the install base.

 I agree with you. PC games are great. My point is unless hardware prices take a steep drop the PC will always be the alternative to the consoles.

XGamer0611 said: sc94597 said: XGamer0611 said: The only reason PC gaming isn't number one platform or will ever be is the cost of hardware. In PC gaming you have to upgrade your hardware every 12-18 months. That isn't something people want to do or can afford for that matter. With the price of high-end video cards exceeding the price of the PS3 and 360 (combined). There is a reason consoles stay the number one form of gaming. But the consols rely alot on pc games. There is no doubt the pc games will stay on pc as the developement costs are cheaper, and the software sales are pretty good for the install base.  I agree with you. PC games are great. My point is unless hardware prices take a steep drop the PC will always be the alternative to the consoles.

 That doesn't make sense.There is a very large userbase of pc gamers that will buy the games, and the attach rates are probably alot higher than those on the 360 and ps3. So I don't see how price would affect it unless the userbase was small, and games don't sell which it's isn't and they don't.

sc94597 said: Ail said: It will be a while before the average PC sets itself apart from the HD console. Sure the top PC already do, but not every PC gamer has a 250$ graphic card. + lets not forget that PC runs game at 1600x1200 and consoles run them at a much lower resolution... Average Dell PC ( I mean the 600-700$ PC)you can buy these days has a NVidia 8600 GT which while being better than what you find in HD consoles isn't that much better when you factor the higher resolution it has to run at compared to HD consoles. Sure you can have a lot more graphic power running 8800 SLI but not that many people do.......  YOu don't realize how fast pcs advance do you? A year from now most pcs will be getting the integrated Cpu and Gpu in one processor which is suppose to make the average processor advance enough to play most games of the current. pcs advance really fast, they are already starting to set apart from consoles with games like far cry 2 running so poorly on consoles compared to pc. I belieive this could be good and bad. There will be more than just pc ports for my hd consoles, and my purchase woul dhave been more worth it,  but not as many pc games for other people who like them to play on consoles.

 

First of all there is no evidence that integrated/fusion GPU/CPUs will have anywhere near the performance needed for modern games. By all logic their GPU-power will be very crappy, just less-crappy than the power in integrated chips we have today.

Second, your time guess. "A year from now" is just that, guessing. There's hardly any info about AMD's Fusion-project at all, and even less so on Intel's.

Third, even if the time guess would become reality, mass market integrated/fusion GPUs would cripple PC-engines and their use of the latest graphics effects! Don't u see the logic? The PC games today are cutting edge because of the fact that the mass market adopted the use of dedicated GPUs, and thus are having a lot of horse-power for advanced 3D graphics. Cheap fusion GPU/CPU-solutions are actually a threat against PC devs putting resources on creating cutting edge advanced game engines.

I don't think there will be such a great division this time around, simply because the cost of developing and especially producing even higher end graphics than for example Crysis is too high. The market is not ready to sustain such costs yet, and I don't know when it will be, if ever.

Another thing is that the current level of graphics is "good enough" for all but the most exreme, thus the economic incentive to up the level actually get smaller as the user base shrinks. What we might see, and I hope so, is that the extra horsepower in PCs is put to better AI/physics etc. I, for one, would love to see AI take on certain emotional aspects. And what would be a killer game for me is a Virtua Fighter with realistic physics modeling of the fighters so that instead of going through motion captured sequences, the fighters' bodies would actually react to the hits and misses.

Slimebeast said: sc94597 said: Ail said: It will be a while before the average PC sets itself apart from the HD console. Sure the top PC already do, but not every PC gamer has a 250$ graphic card. + lets not forget that PC runs game at 1600x1200 and consoles run them at a much lower resolution... Average Dell PC ( I mean the 600-700$ PC)you can buy these days has a NVidia 8600 GT which while being better than what you find in HD consoles isn't that much better when you factor the higher resolution it has to run at compared to HD consoles. Sure you can have a lot more graphic power running 8800 SLI but not that many people do.......  YOu don't realize how fast pcs advance do you? A year from now most pcs will be getting the integrated Cpu and Gpu in one processor which is suppose to make the average processor advance enough to play most games of the current. pcs advance really fast, they are already starting to set apart from consoles with games like far cry 2 running so poorly on consoles compared to pc. I belieive this could be good and bad. There will be more than just pc ports for my hd consoles, and my purchase woul dhave been more worth it,  but not as many pc games for other people who like them to play on consoles.   First of all there is no evidence that integrated/fusion GPU/CPUs will have anywhere near the performance needed for modern games. By all logic their GPU-power will be very crappy, just less-crappy than the power in integrated chips we have today. Second, your time guess. "A year from now" is just that, guessing. There's hardly any info about AMD's Fusion-project at all, and even less so on Intel's. Third, even if the time guess would become reality, mass market integrated/fusion GPUs would cripple PC-engines and their use of the latest graphics effects! Don't u see the logic? The PC games today are cutting edge because of the fact that the mass market adopted the use of dedicated GPUs, and thus are having a lot of horse-power for advanced 3D graphics. Cheap fusion GPU/CPU-solutions are actually a threat against PC devs putting resources on creating cutting edge advanced game engines.

First of all like you said we know very little about these projects, but then say it will cripple it more than help conflicting with your first argument. I will also ask why intel and amd will go this direction and even say it will help more than hinder if they already if it will hinder more than help. Who said we will lose the dedicated gpu option anyway? Who even said they won't make a dedidcated line of these chips for the high end pc gamers? Like you said we know very little about it. I also remember reading somewhere that amd mentioned that they were hoping for the first chip to be released in 09 , but I'm not too sure. And that is still not relevant to my point anyway. Pcs advance quickly. Last year it would have costed me $200 dollars to play crysis, this year it costs $500 and crysis seems to be getting maxed with pc around the $1000 dollar mark and even lower. The ps3 and even more so the xbox 360 rely alot on pc games for their 3rd party, and after they lose this we will either see a decrease in support, or more games designed for the consoles excusively.