Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC Gaming is now pathetic

Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 11, 2008 8:58:47 PM


I know that the PC in mine and many others opinion is the best gaming machine bar none...

The trouble is now.. That PC games are now no longer sold by our local Tesco ( our equvilent of Wallmart ).

They have stopped selling all together except clearence lines...

PC Game magazines are anorexic... Spore is the best game out for ages.

Ensemble Studios shutting down.. Lucas Arts not giving us the Force Unleashed... Its getting desperate...


Will some one give us a moral boost before we are all playing poxy PS3's and Xbox's.. Wii's are just so good that they deserve every thing thats comming to them... But the PC has been left behind..




HB

More about : gaming pathetic

September 11, 2008 9:10:45 PM

I so tire of this.

Spore Crysis COD4 Dawn of War Company of Heroes World in Conflict Bioshock Sins of a Solar Empire Warhammer Online Fallout 3 Starcraft 2 Team Fortress 2 Halflife 2 Portal Dragon Age Galactic Civilizations 2 Diablo 3 and tons of others.

These are just games that have come recently, or are coming soon and have gotten tons of acclaim and/or media attention.

Yes, consoles are getting a lot of good titles. So are PCs. As the current generation of consoles age the PCs will get more and more games again. Quit yer bellyachin. There is nothing really to complain about.
September 11, 2008 9:29:31 PM

Funny thing is that in the last year I've spent more money on Wii hardware than on my PCs. Yet I find that every month there are better PC titles coming out than there are Wii titles.
Related resources
September 11, 2008 10:23:56 PM

My mine issue is the flood of after thought console ports. You that have the 'A' and 'B' button graphics still left in the game, etc. Ah they are mostly s*** with that really annoying third person perspective that lets you magically see around corners. :crazy: 

Maybe folk will wake up from this consolemare and see the light... Hopefully helped by the resurgence of decent priced GPUs thanks to ATI's 48xx series! :sol: 

A gather the new THQ Red Faction version will be a console port to the PC.. So another excellent game potentially ruined in the interests of making money. Thats were it really hurts!! Lets just hope Dues Ex 3 isn't bastardized... :cry: 

Bob

September 11, 2008 10:56:05 PM

infornography42 said:
I so tire of this.

Spore Crysis COD4 Dawn of War Company of Heroes World in Conflict Bioshock Sins of a Solar Empire Warhammer Online Fallout 3 Starcraft 2 Team Fortress 2 Halflife 2 Portal Dragon Age Galactic Civilizations 2 Diablo 3 and tons of others.

These are just games that have come recently, or are coming soon and have gotten tons of acclaim and/or media attention.

Yes, consoles are getting a lot of good titles. So are PCs. As the current generation of consoles age the PCs will get more and more games again. Quit yer bellyachin. There is nothing really to complain about.
Diablo 3 doesn't come out until at least 2010, so I wouldn't say "soon", and half the titles you listed came out in 2007. A good number of those titles are on the PS3/Xbox360, and those versions either have outsold the PC version, or will outsell the PC version when they launch. Spore currently has an 86 on metacritic which is pretty good, but from the little bit I've played it is a disappointment after all the hype and a long development cycle. You're in denial if you don't think the PC is losing popularity as a gaming platform. Epic is basically dropping the PC all together, Valve is launching its titles on the 360 simultaneously with the PC, and id software is launching Rage on the PS3, 360, and PC. Blizzard is basically the only major PC exclusive developer left, and they haven't launched a new game since World of Warcraft in 2004, although their upcoming titles look amazing. Now, the PC isn't dead, nor is it going to die as a gaming platform; we just need a couple more years for the PS3 and 360 to become even more dated technologically so the PC will once again look that much better in comparison. Honestly, I can't wait until we get cards capable of running Crysis at 1920x1200 with at least 4xAA on all Very High settings with a framerate of 60fps or better.
September 12, 2008 8:28:12 AM

I have been reading about PC gamings death since I bought a 450mhz machine a long long time ago, and yet it still exists.
Back then it was that PC games were too complex to install/run, having to do odd bat files in dos etc.
Now its piracy / lack of support, but it will continue.
If the big developers pull out there will be a niche in the market for smaller developers to produce quality games. Just look at kerberos and the game sword of the stars.
PC gaming will not die, just evolve.
September 12, 2008 9:26:07 AM

Last time I read by hours of play time the PC was still the biggest gaming machine out there. I think a LARGE chunk of reduced PC sales has to be down to mmorpgs theres MILLIONS of players out there devoting their time and money to mmorpgs, surely that has to drop the number of single player games they can be bothered to buy right down?
September 12, 2008 11:42:41 AM

pc gaming companies complain about people not buying their games, and based on a NPD sales report, it shows that many people don't buy them

but theres 1 flaw in it

NPD only logs in store sales and not online sales


and how many games do you see in stores.

the local circuiticity and best buy didn't even get crysis yet

the pc gaming rack is like 2 square feet of space with very few pc games

theres nothing to choose from

most pc games have also gotten so hard to program that they cant do anything new and cool with the games because it will be too hard to program due to the graphics war thats going on between game developers

pc gaming will never die as there will always be a few people willing to make games the problem is games are just getting harder to make

it is even starting to happen with console games we are starting to see less and less of them due to how hard they are becoming to make.

console gaming is still doing better even though it has vastly higher levels of piracy (while a smaller percentage of console gamers pirate, due to the total number of console gamers, console has more pirates than pc games)

console gaming is still more successful because you don't have to upgrade the consoles videocard every 4-5 months to run the latest games the way the developer intended them to be run

since they cant have a graphics war on console, more people find it to be a more cost effective investment

console also has more transparent DRM

a legit user wont be bothered by the drm on a console game. they just put the game disk in and the game plays

it cant get any easier or simpler then that

thats what makes a game sell


while MMO's are also causing problems with pc gaming as when you pay a monthly fee for a game, your less willing to spend even more for another game

and more developers are trying to make their own MMO's then complaining about poor sales

everyone seems to be trying to make their own WOW with out thinking, if most of the pc gamers already have WOW and are paying a arm and a leg every month to keep their WOW subscription, what makes you think that they will spend their other arm and leg on your MMO when they already have WOW

this causes poor sales and game developers will blame it on things like piracy

all crappy games that barely sold any copies had developers that cried about piracy



if piracy was the cause of poor sales then hellgate London should have sold the same number of copies as call of duty 4
September 12, 2008 11:44:50 AM

the problem is that new games, especially crysis, require u to have a £300 craphics card just to make them playable. and even then there's no guarantee it'll run. So as graphics get better and better, and the hardware requirement list gets longer and longer, the PC will become less popular. why pay £300 for a gpu when people can get PS3 which doubles as a home theatre system for the same price? and will play all the games that come out for it, without having to upgrade.

Programmers for PC games need to spend more time streamlining their code, so they can be played on machines other then some hardcore gamer's £3k system. Like valve did with Half-life 2. Crysis needs a stonker system because it's badly written, hell they dont even bother to support it anymore since they've given up trying to sort it out.

When developers make new games play on the average PC system, then the PC will become the dominant gaming platform again. Other wise, gamers will choice a ready made, guaranteed to work system called a console.
September 12, 2008 12:11:50 PM

baldinie said:
the problem is that new games, especially crysis, require u to have a £300 craphics card just to make them playable. and even then there's no guarantee it'll run. So as graphics get better and better, and the hardware requirement list gets longer and longer, the PC will become less popular. why pay £300 for a gpu when people can get PS3 which doubles as a home theatre system for the same price? and will play all the games that come out for it, without having to upgrade.

Programmers for PC games need to spend more time streamlining their code, so they can be played on machines other then some hardcore gamer's £3k system. Like valve did with Half-life 2. Crysis needs a stonker system because it's badly written, hell they dont even bother to support it anymore since they've given up trying to sort it out.

When developers make new games play on the average PC system, then the PC will become the dominant gaming platform again. Other wise, gamers will choice a ready made, guaranteed to work system called a console.


yep not to mention when you get a 360 or a PS3, the console will last you 3 years + before you have to upgrade to a new console, while with pc the upgrade time line is more like every 3-5 months if you want to run the latest games as the settings the developers intended them to run

and crysis is badly written

on the settings I ran crysis on, (sound on high, physics on high and everything else on medium except post processing and volumetric which are on low)

I can run COD4 on high settings and it would look much better than crysis on those settings and run at least twice as fast


on the lowest settings on crysis, the game looks like it came out in late year 2000

but it still runs slow when you compare how it looks to games that look much better and run faster

crysis has inefficient coding



but if you want really poor programming, then try the game
second life

crysis runs better than second life

my friend has a GTX280 and he gets around 50FPS in crysis (high settings), but only around 30-40 with second life

which looks better to you

second life
full sized http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7243/snapshot061ei6....

or crysis
full sized http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/3696/crysis1zi3.jpg

so at least we know that crysis may not have been made by the best programmers but they certainly weren't made by the worst programmers either
September 12, 2008 12:23:55 PM

£300 graphics card to run crysis? Even assuming you meant $300, that's still an exaggeration. You can get a GTX 260 or HD4870 for under $300, both of which can handle Crysis perfectly fine. I myself use a 9800 GTX which is cheaper and inferior to both of those cards and run Crysis at Very High @ 1680 x 1050 fine.

Also, £3000 on a PC to run it? I built a complete system a few months ago for half that, and that's including the OS, a high quality 22" monitor, speakers, case, etc.

I think you need to read up on PC's and PC gaming before commenting. Regurgitating the crap that console fanboys spout about PC's just show's your ignorance.
September 12, 2008 12:33:21 PM

And isn't Second Life slowed by being an online game rather than it's graphical complexities?
September 12, 2008 12:36:20 PM

mothhive said:
£300 graphics card to run crysis? Even assuming you meant $300, that's still an exaggeration. You can get a GTX 260 or HD4870 for under $300, both of which can handle Crysis perfectly fine. I myself use a 9800 GTX which is cheaper and inferior to both of those cards and run Crysis at Very High @ 1680 x 1050 fine.

Also, £3000 on a PC to run it? I built a complete system a few months ago for half that, and that's including the OS, a high quality 22" monitor, speakers, case, etc.

I think you need to read up on PC's and PC gaming before commenting. Regurgitating the crap that console fanboys spout about PC's just show's your ignorance.


Agreed!

For about 1500 you can get a complete rig monitor mouse keys etc... and a computer that should run crysis at a high res with
few problems!
September 12, 2008 12:37:57 PM

mi1ez said:
And isn't Second Life slowed by being an online game rather than it's graphical complexities?


That and a stupidly unoptimized engine! :lol: 
September 12, 2008 5:47:30 PM

harveywuk said:
That and a stupidly unoptimized engine! :lol: 



it has a offline mode for debugging and testing

it may be the worst game engine ever created

in a sandbox sim in the mainland, a large scale particle spam causes the framerate of a geforce 8800gtx SLI to go from around 40 fps, to around 5FPS

even though games like crysis and COD4 will have hundreds of times more particle effects going on

another thing that shows how bad SL is, is that I have a geforce 6800 and I get around 28-40FPS

my friend has GTX280 and he gets 30-40FPS

1 other person who i hang out with on SL has dual 9800's in SLI and he gets around 30-40 but usually in the upper 37-40

but 1 well placed particle bomb knocks all of out framerates down to single digits unless we use the particle limit in the settings

SL= epic fail game engine

sl also seems to render everything even if it is not in view or blocked by another object

as if you build a large box, and place a particle bomb in there and set the range to 5 meters (make the box 20 meters )

it will still cause a large drop in FPS

and the cpu and the videocard and memory don't seem to be bottle necks as I have trouble getting the game to even use 40% cpu usage, and it doesn't even use close to half of the video memory in the videocard (you can check video memory usage using rivatuner )

and a GTX280 is many times more powerful than a geforce 6800 so it should get more than a 5-7FPS boost in SL
September 12, 2008 5:57:47 PM

Firstly, am not a console fanboy. I play PC games, and am building a new rig as we speak, with a q6600, HD4870, 4GB RAM. but i've seen all bencmarks get barely acceptable framerates with all the bells and whistles in crysis with things like DDR3 RAM, HD4870x2 (£300 thank you) and an x6800. the fact is, that the console is still playing the game at the developers best settings with no problems, or driver issues, or hardware conflicts and without the need to upgrade, ever!
"For about 1500 you can get a complete rig monitor mouse keys etc... and a computer that should run crysis at a high res with
few problems!"
my point exactly again. u need to spend £1500 for a decent set up to play crysis. £300 will get ut a PS3, and everyone has a TV already. so ya set, for £300! there's no reason crysis should need a system that high in spec, if the developers just spent some time steamlining to code, instead of rushing to get it out along side ghost recon and CoD4, before the graphics moved on and crysis looked out of date.
September 12, 2008 5:59:37 PM

Quote:
Agreed!

For about 1500 you can get a complete rig monitor mouse keys etc... and a computer that should run crysis at a high res with
few problems!


Firstly, am not a console fanboy. I play PC games, and am building a new rig as we speak, with a q6600, HD4870, 4GB RAM. but i've seen all bencmarks get barely acceptable framerates with all the bells and whistles in crysis with things like DDR3 RAM, HD4870x2 (£300 thank you) and an x6800. the fact is, that the console is still playing the game at the developers best settings with no problems, or driver issues, or hardware conflicts and without the need to upgrade, ever!
"For about 1500 you can get a complete rig monitor mouse keys etc... and a computer that should run crysis at a high res with
few problems!"
my point exactly again. u need to spend £1500 for a decent set up to play crysis. £300 will get ut a PS3, and everyone has a TV already. so ya set, for £300! there's no reason crysis should need a system that high in spec, if the developers just spent some time steamlining to code, instead of rushing to get it out along side ghost recon and CoD4, before the graphics moved on and crysis looked out of date.
September 12, 2008 6:32:17 PM

I can build a pretty powerful system for half THAT. If I were to build a PC today it would cost about $1000 to $1500 American including Monitor, keyboard, mouse, and shipping. Of course I don't care about all the settings in Crysis being maxed out as long as they are decently high and the framerate is good. I also don't play Crysis.

You don't get significantly more performance per dollar above the $1500 mark so I don't typically go above that point.
September 12, 2008 6:43:59 PM

ok, ya all missing the point i was making! the console market is popular because vendors dont continuously bring out a new card, or a new varient, or new shiney label! and ya dont have to get a new system everytime someone changes the number of cpu pins. when ya buy a PS3 or an XBOX, ya sorted. thats it. it'll work with everything, and every game that comes out, forever. unlike the PC, where ya have to upgrade, and new (BADLY WRITTEN GAMES like Crysis) come along and make everyone have to upgrade in order to keep up! that was the point i was TRYING to make. crysis is a badly written game, and needs high end parts to be playable and a decent lookin resolution like all the promotion vids show it looking like.
September 12, 2008 7:12:42 PM

My point is that is irrelevant. There are plenty of very good games coming to the PC still. I don't see the point in crying because some of those games happen to also be coming to consoles, that is just petty.
September 12, 2008 7:15:22 PM

yes there are, starcraft 2 is one I've been waiting for for many years. but programmers have to make sure that the games are playble by the 90% of people who dont have a top of the range system.
September 12, 2008 7:28:26 PM

Agreed. But on the other hand, 90% of game developers do put out games that are compatible with systems that are 3 to 5 years old. I don't feel it is fair to point at the exception and say 'see, they are doing it wrong'. The number of games I have ever had to upgrade for, I can count on one hand and I typically don't build a new computer more often than once every 3 years.
September 12, 2008 8:53:29 PM

infornography42 said:
Agreed. But on the other hand, 90% of game developers do put out games that are compatible with systems that are 3 to 5 years old. I don't feel it is fair to point at the exception and say 'see, they are doing it wrong'. The number of games I have ever had to upgrade for, I can count on one hand and I typically don't build a new computer more often than once every 3 years.



yes the games are "compatible" but the difference between compatible and enjoyable is huge. pcs from 2/3 years ago will run the newest games but the resolution/eyecandy has to be turned down so much that the game is far less enjoyable than if played on an xbox360/ps3 from years ago which costed the same or less!

i think the main problem is developers pushing up system requirements... i bought a hd3850 for £115 7 months ago and some new games are already starting to look shabby, grid is one game that sucks on my sytem but is such a good game that i would love to play at high settings. i cant get the game to run at decent fps above 1024x768 which is gay... no doubt when gta iv and tomb raider underworld come out (my next planned purchaces) i will need a hd4850/hd4870 and maybe a quad core cpu. thats another £200 atleast. to get those 2 games on xbox/ps3 it would be £80 and they would be guaruneed to look good, and i would already have gta iv, infact **** pc gaming when this mobo and cpu is useless im getting a ps3
September 12, 2008 9:31:44 PM


I think too many games rely on eye candy rather than substance. This is not helped by the influence of the Console. I enjoyed playing Mass Effect at first. That was until I realised it had huge chunks missing around the edges with many corners cut in a very obvious fashion... You know like interspace travel hasn't even got a cut scene. The stupid planetary buggy thing. Etc. I mean UT2004 has better physics and vehicles!!

I still enjoy going back to play the likes of Red Faction 1 and Dues Ex 1. I just feel that the development cycle of modern games is too short and they spend too much time on the graphics and not enough time on the actual gameplay. If you have the development time then you can produce a decent game with good graphics. Doom 3 may have linear gameplay but it is very enjoyable because a hell of a lot of time went into the atmosphere and sound. It also pushes DX 8 to the limits.

UT3 is another game in point. Dodgy graphics engine with bugs in the shadows, etc.. I know a lot of people prefer deathmatches to the more open style of UT2004 but I don't. It feels like a step backwards. Console influence here? Issues of porting to multiple platforms adding to the complexity? I don't know for sure but one can speculate.

Plus it's got to be said again "3rd person" viewpoint is evil and should be banned for FPS... :sol: 

To the people complaining about PC hardware expense and upgrade cycles. When competition is working things aren't so bad. E5200 + 4850 = good deal for example. The price of my old HIS AGP 9800 128Mb Pro buys a Radeon 4870!! Also RAM is much cheaper these days.

Sure there is no golden age of PC gaming (plenty of sh** games produced in the past)... But things aren't getting any better!! Rant, rant... :crazy: 

Bob

September 12, 2008 9:50:01 PM

If you compare it purely on a system per system basis, metacritic.com will show you that the PC has more A titles total (which are still absolutely worth playing I might add) than any single console.

I'd go so far to say that at any given time the PC has more A titles than the PS3/Xbox/Wii combined (assuming you don't duplicate cross-platform titles)

You can even knock off the PC cross-platforms and you'll still end up with more for the PC.

The only thing i'm unclear on as i'm not a console gamer /at all/ is whether the PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games, and the Xbox360 with Xbox games - if they are fully backwards compatible then i'd say the consoles have a fair bit going for them, but if they aren't backwards compatible than my point stands.

That said, the only thing that is a drag about PC games is waiting for titles - typically it takes a great deal more effort to code a PC title because of compatibility issues while with a console its 1 software/hardware set. I think really this is why you see so many companies focusing on MMORPG titles, because they have a lucrative subscription model which helps to pay for the developement.

Lets assume for a second that you could take a game like lets say: Stalker, Clear Sky. Give it a good developement time, flesh out the playable area/factions, put it on a subscription model as an MMOFPS somewhat like Homeworld, but with lots of singleplayer/co-op/pvp objectives, in a NEW game; do you think people would buy into that?

I guess just the way I see it is that "MMO" Fantasy games seem to be the most successful PC games right now, so offering some sort of personal advancement model (such as leveling up in CoD4) seems to be the main way to attract people to continue playing your game.

Anyways, the idea of re-thinking the MMOFPS genre is just a convoluted idea at best, but I thought i'd throw it out there.
September 13, 2008 1:13:59 AM

Quote:
The only thing i'm unclear on as i'm not a console gamer /at all/ is whether the PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games, and the Xbox360 with Xbox games - if they are fully backwards compatible then i'd say the consoles have a fair bit going for them, but if they aren't backwards compatible than my point stands.


Sir, if you don't know this obvious information please refrain from commenting on anything about consoles as it shows your ignorance.

Now, to all people on all forums that discuss this issue over and over again, the typical absurd claim that you need to upgrade your pc each 5-6 months ( what a load of ****), i just don't understand how they are reasoning and how come nobody is opposing them with the right answer.

I own a q6600, 4gb and ati 4870 , a more or less $1000 rig. This computer my friend will allow me to play ANY game released on 360/ps3 at max setting, and since WE know current consoles still have AT LEAST two years to live and considering the current policy of most developers about pc gaming and cross platforming, my PC will play all the upcoming games (multi platform which are 90% of the available choice anyway) at MAX setting for at least 2 years.

That very point aside, let's go now to those Upcoming exclusive games, first of all, my computer can run CRysis ( a badly optimized game in DX10 as i proved before) all maxed out 1440*900 with average of 35 fps. For those who still own a 7800 GTX and feel like they need to upgrade, they can play Crysis with a mix of mid and high setting (in dx9 mode) and crysis will look like one of the best shooters on Console !! why do people forget that there is a word called scalability.

Therefore , you will still enjoy THE SAME visual standard , much like you do when you own a console even after a couple of years after buying the card.

In my case, the 4870 will probably not play the pc exclusives games released in a year or so at VERY high setting , but i'm sure i'll be able to settle in high and that will STILL look twice as good as consoles , hence keeping always the same standard graphic and using fully my 4870 horsepower.

based on the current developers policy, my 4870 will take a big hit when and only when consoles Decide to move to the next level.
September 13, 2008 1:53:21 AM

ok, firstly, having a go at people who aren't at the cutting edge is just stupid. the whole point is that people gain knowledge from these forums. no you dont need to upgrade every 5-6 months. BUT developers write games based on the lastest parts for PC's every 6-12months. so a console has a much longer shelf life at max res then our q6600 + HD4870 system. Which, as you well know, will be put out of date by a single card or CPU update, or even a Dx update. where as the console will live on in all its glory until the new version comes along.
And the whole point is, that people buying the XBOX 360 or PS3 dont have to worry about Direct x updates, or driver versions. Their hardware is good to go out the box.

And I agree, that the MMOG's have ruined things for the rest of us, assuming that we care more about wasted the little hours of the morning fighting a guy we've never met on the other side of the world, then having a truly immersive game. The fact is, PC games have more and more shiny graphics! BUT, the PS3 and the Wii are moving forward with handsets that sense moevement. There is only so much a PC game can do, with a keyboard and a mouse. Basically, every FPS game on the PC is just a shiny version of wolfenstein.

BUT before all you PC fanboys jump on me. I AM A PC GUY! I go for heavy PC hardware before consoles anyday! otherwise I wouldn't be on Tomshardware!
September 13, 2008 3:34:05 AM

the problem is that if you only target the cutting edge and force people into upgrading every 5-6 months then your target market will be less than 1% of the pc users

then you will wind up complaining that piracy was the main reason why your impossible to run game didn't sell enough

console games sell better because everyone with the console can run the game so you have a 100% target market, so even if most of them pirate, you still have higher sale numbers with consoles. but with pc games, they get carried away with graphics ad wind up with a game that has crap gameplay, and is extremely short

September 13, 2008 4:15:49 AM

I was going to write a long post addressing some of the comments made here, but instead I'll just say I agree with abasoufiane.
The very notion of requiring any kind of hardware upgrade every 3-6 to keep up is ABSURD, and these misconceptions, over-exaggerations and dramatizations of everything is the very thing that gives PC gaming a bad name!

I had and still have much more to say, however, I am tired of these topics showing up over and over again here, so I will refrain from writing more and wasting more of my time (and possibly yours).

I'm off to enjoy gaming on my PC! :) 

September 13, 2008 11:11:32 AM

baldinie said:
u need to spend £1500 for a decent set up to play crysis. £300 will get ut a PS3, and everyone has a TV already. so ya set, for £300!


lol Who said you NEED to spend that much on a PC? I built mine with some of the best components that could be had at the time so that it would handle games in the future and be upgradeable. Far superior to any consoles. Also, if I had the monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse and software before hand, it would've been around £1000. Before I built this PC, I built a much cheaper one for a friend a year ago for £400 (would be much cheaper now) and it handles Crysis beautifully (On medium/high, but the graphics and resolution are far better than anything you'd find on a console). This £400 PC can do (and does) far more than a PS3 ever could. Sure, it can't play Blu Ray discs right now, but why the hell would I want to? Waste of money in my opinion. If I ever did feel the need though, I could pick up a Blu Ray drive for £60 which could also play HD DVD's, regualr DVD's and burn DVD's.

As for your ridiculous comment about everyone having a TV. You know that for a fact do you? Well, you're wrong. I haven't had one for the last 3 years, and I'm not the only person I know that doesn't have one!

Also, just to reiterate what abasoufiane and trackman2010 said about people insisting that to be a PC gamer you need to upgrade every 3-6 months, that is complete bs (what people say, not what they said :D  ). The PC I had before this one was built in 2001 for £500. It played all the new games up til 2006 and then it would struggle with the most demanding ones. It was still my main source of gaming and worked (and still works) fine for World of Warcraft, Half Life 2 and I can also play ALL my old PC games on it with no problems. The 3-6 month upgrade is for people who have an abundance of money and are either hardware enthusiasts, or are the people who feel the need to have the best at all times, just for bragging rights.

Now I'm off to play the Beta of Wrath of the Lich King and hopefully help make it a better experience on release, something that console gamers don't get to do with their games. :kaola: 
September 13, 2008 7:28:23 PM

The main thing I like about PC games is their longevity. Even games from this year on Xbox 360 have horrible online communities with barely any people on them. The PC has so many games that are still going strong, like Starcraft, Age of Empires, Counter-Strike, Diablo, etc. I think the main reason for this is that the PC is a platform that has always been. Sure it has evolved and upgraded, but on a Windows box you can basically play any game ever made for the PC with a little work. Also, the communities aren't locked to a system like Xbox Live. For AoE, Zone went down, but now there are other sites that allow you to play with others online.

I'm rambling so I'm just going to stop here but I feel I've made my point.
September 14, 2008 1:24:22 AM

I really think the main problem is that if you want to game on the PC you have to know about computers, bottom line. Sad to say, most people know nothing about computers. If they want to game, their just going to go to best buy, ask for a com, and end up with an expensive piece of crap. Those people get mad and decide instead to just use it for work and get a console for games. What I think is that places like newegg need to have some way to advertise or sell their products so people would rather go there than best buy or even have a retail store. My other hypothesis is that computers need to be dumbed down a LOT so that the average joe can just pick up the parts and put them in. It's simple to people like us but just too difficult for most people to deal with. The other thing that would be interesting is if your computer could tell you its own bottlenecks and recommend which exact parts to buy. It could be tied in to the internet to find the best prices and do all the ordering itself. All you would have to do is give your consent to order and swap out the parts (remember it would be dumbed down on the inside). Of course, this could be disabled easily if the owner is already familiar with coms. Just a thought.
September 14, 2008 6:48:16 AM

I do not know why people are saying upgrading video cards once per 5 month. My 8800GTX is older than 18months, and I still run most of the game on absolute max everything, with exception of Crysis, which I run on high. You do not need 60FPS to enjoy the game, 30 is more than enough, and even 25 is quite playable.
September 14, 2008 9:54:52 AM

bobwya said:
Plus it's got to be said again "3rd person" viewpoint is evil and should be banned for FPS... :sol: 


If the view's 3rd person, it's not a FPS by definition!

:p 
September 14, 2008 4:34:18 PM

mi1ez said:
If the view's 3rd person, it's not a FPS by definition!

:p 


Hee hee good point!! TPS then?? :lol: 

Bob
September 15, 2008 3:01:33 AM

baldinie said:
the problem is that new games, especially crysis, require u to have a £300 craphics card just to make them playable. and even then there's no guarantee it'll run. So as graphics get better and better, and the hardware requirement list gets longer and longer, the PC will become less popular. why pay £300 for a gpu when people can get PS3 which doubles as a home theatre system for the same price? and will play all the games that come out for it, without having to upgrade.

Programmers for PC games need to spend more time streamlining their code, so they can be played on machines other then some hardcore gamer's £3k system. Like valve did with Half-life 2. Crysis needs a stonker system because it's badly written, hell they dont even bother to support it anymore since they've given up trying to sort it out.

When developers make new games play on the average PC system, then the PC will become the dominant gaming platform again. Other wise, gamers will choice a ready made, guaranteed to work system called a console.


You don't need a 300$ GPU to play. You can get a 80$ GPU and just settle for medium settings with a rez of 1024x720 or 1024x600 (Console like settings)and probably get 30-45FPS. A 300$ GPU is needed if you want to play 1920x1080 everything maxed out and looking 10X better than your crappy console. My 180$ HD4850 played through Crysis all high settings at 1680x1050 with a steady console like frame rate of 30 or so. And it looked 5x better.

Also, I bought my Tower for about 1000$ exactly 2 years ago yesterday. What have I upgraded since then? I got an additional HD for Raid, and Xfi sound card because onboard sounds like crappy consoles, and went from 120$ X850XT --> 220$ 8800GTS --> 180$ HD 4850. And the 8800GTS was still completely capable of playing all of today's games. You could get something comparable for probably like 800$ now (non-prebuilt of course).

The people who say you need a 1500$ PC to play crysis, and I mean just play crysis don't know what the hell they are talking about.

My specs:
Manufacturer:
Yours Truely, Built: Sept of 06
Processor:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 B2 @ 3.2GHz 1.375v (loaded)
Memory:
2GB Corsair ram @ 667/800Mhz 4-4-4-10 @ 2v
Hard Drive:
240GB of Raid 0, 500GB storage
Video Card:
MSI Radeon HD4850 512 GPU:625/685 Ram: 1968/2250
Monitor:
Acer 22inch 5ms Non-TN Widescreen
Sound Card:
X-Fi XtremeGamer
Speakers/Headphones:
Logitech THX Z-5300e 5.1or SENNHEISER PX100 Headphones
Keyboard:
Logitech Multimedia Pro
Mouse:
Microsoft 5 button optical intellimouse 1.1A
Mouse Surface:
Operating System:
Windows XP Professional SP3
Motherboard:
Gigabyte DS3 P965 Rev. 1 F10
Computer Case:
Rosewill 40$ case

September 15, 2008 6:57:47 AM

theacclaimed said:
The main thing I like about PC games is their longevity. Even games from this year on Xbox 360 have horrible online communities with barely any people on them. The PC has so many games that are still going strong, like Starcraft, Age of Empires, Counter-Strike, Diablo, etc. I think the main reason for this is that the PC is a platform that has always been. Sure it has evolved and upgraded, but on a Windows box you can basically play any game ever made for the PC with a little work. Also, the communities aren't locked to a system like Xbox Live. For AoE, Zone went down, but now there are other sites that allow you to play with others online.

I'm rambling so I'm just going to stop here but I feel I've made my point.



Agreed about the longivity.... I played BF1942 for nearly 4 years with the rise of the Desert Combat mod..

Oh yeah wasnt Duke Nukem due out soon --- Im not gonna buy this one on principle...

But there is a lot less to choose from nowadays, and although this topic has gone off a bit, pc games are not as exciting for bringing in the new.. Sad as it is, I was really looking forward to the Ghostbusters game but it has been put back...

Hopefully this will pass but its been a bit stagnant on the pc front for a while..
September 15, 2008 1:05:29 PM

So is console gaming. You know it's bad when FF goes to the xbox. And the cows haven't even come home yet!

Those mags mostly suck, whether it's xbox fanboy or pc fanboy, stopped reading pc gamer long ago (only after the first apology though).

And what's with all the hype around the resistance and killzone sequels? They were average games at best (like Crysis), though they sell like madness. Then there's epic fails, Haze hahaha. WTF was that POS?



Quote:
We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players. “Spore” has more depth than, let’s say, “The Sims” did. But we looked at the Metacritic scores for “Sims 2″, which was around 90, and something like “Half-Life“, which was 97, and we decided — quite a while back — that we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of “Sims 2″ than the Metacritic and sales of “Half-Life“.
—Will Wright
September 15, 2008 2:14:22 PM

Hellboy said:
I know that the PC in mine and many others opinion is the best gaming machine bar none...

The trouble is now.. That PC games are now no longer sold by our local Tesco ( our equvilent of Wallmart ).

They have stopped selling all together except clearence lines...

PC Game magazines are anorexic... Spore is the best game out for ages.

Ensemble Studios shutting down.. Lucas Arts not giving us the Force Unleashed... Its getting desperate...


Will some one give us a moral boost before we are all playing poxy PS3's and Xbox's.. Wii's are just so good that they deserve every thing thats comming to them... But the PC has been left behind..




HB


I never brought games from Tesco anyway so it's not a big loss, besides even Tesco will struggle to compete on price against online retailers (rent, rates overheads all need to paid for) whose overheads are a lot lower.

And why are you crying over Ensemble Studios? AOE 3 was rubbish and it's not like their going anywhere, the team is being incorporated into Microsoft. Force Unleashed is a big name title that has failed to deliver and the lack of exclusive titles is industry wide not specific to the PC.

There are loads of developers still out there that are developing games for the PC so stop whining. I admit that PC gaming is moving in a direction that I’m not comfortable with (MMO’s , Sims/Spore and casual gaming), but there are still plenty of games out there and ones to look forwards to.

September 15, 2008 9:20:18 PM

JeanLuc said:
I never brought games from Tesco anyway so it's not a big loss, besides even Tesco will struggle to compete on price against online retailers (rent, rates overheads all need to paid for) whose overheads are a lot lower.

And why are you crying over Ensemble Studios? AOE 3 was rubbish and it's not like their going anywhere, the team is being incorporated into Microsoft. Force Unleashed is a big name title that has failed to deliver and the lack of exclusive titles is industry wide not specific to the PC.

There are loads of developers still out there that are developing games for the PC so stop whining. I admit that PC gaming is moving in a direction that I’m not comfortable with (MMO’s , Sims/Spore and casual gaming), but there are still plenty of games out there and ones to look forwards to.


But Age of Empires 2 was good...

Tesco is one, just hope this doesnt start a line of shops selling less and less pc games....

I found Sainsburys games sometimes cheaper than Game and some others online - Asda was cheaper on others...... Sometimes by even a fiver... But the main Tesco store in Chelmsford has only got the consoles to worry about now...

But the thing that peeved me off is that EA Store sold Spore for £39.99 when Sainsburys sold it for £34.99

How can EA sell it for more with out media for more money...
September 16, 2008 9:34:44 AM

Because EA are charging what they think they can get away with.

It's £29.99 on CD-Wow and £26.99 from Play, so you can get it much cheaper.
September 16, 2008 4:55:37 PM

1st: No one cares about Magazines anymore. The net is much more interesting...

The PC has plenty of pathetic games... always has and always will. Although your definition of a pathetic game may be another guys golden cup of a game. The Consoles tend to have a higher ratio of pathetic games. So if you want to talk about crap, lets talk about console games.

PC Gaming is not dying... It's not going anywhere...

September 16, 2008 8:27:12 PM

Tyrvidar said:
1st: No one cares about Magazines anymore. The net is much more interesting...

The PC has plenty of pathetic games... always has and always will. Although your definition of a pathetic game may be another guys golden cup of a game. The Consoles tend to have a higher ratio of pathetic games. So if you want to talk about crap, lets talk about console games.

PC Gaming is not dying... It's not going anywhere...



But magazines are good for dumping with..... Theyre are crap time reading material....

Nothing like having a good dump with a games magazine... Plus as a extra bonus --- your crapping and the wife / girlfriend wont bother you either..... Double bonus...

Just would be nice to read about how many new games are on theyre way while pushing one out :) 

Laptops on the bog dont work...

So that was the 1st and what happend to the rest :) 

Hang on Ill invent the dumping laptop trolly and patent it....
September 17, 2008 9:42:52 AM

Hellboy said:
But Age of Empires 2 was good...

Tesco is one, just hope this doesnt start a line of shops selling less and less pc games....

I found Sainsburys games sometimes cheaper than Game and some others online - Asda was cheaper on others...... Sometimes by even a fiver... But the main Tesco store in Chelmsford has only got the consoles to worry about now...

But the thing that peeved me off is that EA Store sold Spore for £39.99 when Sainsburys sold it for £34.99

How can EA sell it for more with out media for more money...



:lol:  You shop at the Tesco in Chelmsford (Miami Roundabout right?) as well, what a coincidence, I take my Mum shopping there every Saturday morning. :lol:  They haven’t had PC games in there for over a year now, but to honest other then the delight of browsing to break up the boredom I get from general shopping there’s not much else I’m going to miss.
September 18, 2008 8:28:04 AM

JeanLuc said:
:lol:  You shop at the Tesco in Chelmsford (Miami Roundabout right?) as well, what a coincidence, I take my Mum shopping there every Saturday morning. :lol:  They haven’t had PC games in there for over a year now, but to honest other then the delight of browsing to break up the boredom I get from general shopping there’s not much else I’m going to miss.



Lol, the Miami Hotel is one of my customers.... I do all their pcs..

Small world..

True tho, Tesco's only got a few games on the bargain front... Sad really as pc games were good to look while the missus back was turned....
But then again there aint many games on their way. Used to be a new pc title every week at one point, now its lucky if its one a month.. ( Decent ones i mean ).

Xbox games are just for people who need a joy pad.. No fun for me im a afraid. Like the keyboard/mouse combo too much..

PS Who ever invented that Pippa Funnel game wants castrating..
September 23, 2008 7:46:18 AM

what do you expect when you can sell a game on a console for 60 bucks and only barely 50 on a PC. Also there is FAR less piracy on consoles compared to PC's. Don't let me get into micro transactions on consoles versus the PC where all add-on must be free or someone will post a whinny little post on the internet about it. Economics, more money in consoles means more development on consoles. Solution? BUY A CONSOLE!!!.
September 23, 2008 10:30:28 AM

PsyKhiqZero said:
what do you expect when you can sell a game on a console for 60 bucks and only barely 50 on a PC. Also there is FAR less piracy on consoles compared to PC's. Don't let me get into micro transactions on consoles versus the PC where all add-on must be free or someone will post a whinny little post on the internet about it. Economics, more money in consoles means more development on consoles. Solution? BUY A CONSOLE!!!.


What a defeatist attitude. People always attack what they dont understand or fully comprehend.

So what if the section in the brick and mortar stores for games are dwindling. This is just a move in the times. I.E : the technology to distribute and sell games without the middle man has now arrived. Not only is it an efficient and effective method of selling games, but the general market audience is MUCH MUCH wider. Look at steams audience. Its world wide and it connects the gamers on the other end to a wide selection of the latest games. Plus it keeps them up to date with patches and fixes etc. When a game is released on steam, even an older one ( one of the greats for example ) , you can rest assure that when you get on this 10 year old game you will be greeted by a substantial and thriving online multiplayer environment. This is just one of the perks for the gamer of the online distribution methodology. Since the publishers cut out all of the middlemen as well as the packaging charges, the cost to you the gamer can ( not always :)  )be reduced substantially. Since your purchase of games from these reputable online suppliers is logged you can always just redownload the game at your leisure. Most of these games also negate the need for DRM as steam in itself is a pretty effective method of DRM and one which i do tend to promote and support.

The future of PC gaming has arrived - Embrace it you doom sayers :fou: 

September 23, 2008 6:21:05 PM

probably the ONE and only thing i get annoyed about when it comes to PC games. is the glitches and errors especially on smaller producers such as NOVALOGIC!

other than that there are plenty of games and will allways be plenty of games to play.

and when there isnt lol you can allways download some porn ...can you do that on as PS3 no ya cant
September 23, 2008 6:40:10 PM

The biggest argument people seem to have for consoles is that it is cheaper. Not really, if you think about it. Yea, only 300 for the PS3, but what about the HDTV? Doesn't that alone cost just as much, or more, than an "HD" monitor with a computer that can handle it?
September 23, 2008 7:01:45 PM

I have a PC, 360 , and a Wii. i buy certain games for each. problem solved :) 
Wii = Fun silly games (ex: boomblox)
360 = Racing, exclusives (like Viva pinata), RPG (like Fable2), etc
PC= FPS - UT3, COD4, etc

sometimes I will buy a game for the 360 because it will run it flawlessly whereas the pc takes patches, tweaking, adjusting, etc...
!