Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Next Gen Consoles vs PC?

Tags:
  • Next Generation
  • PC gaming
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 6:38:21 PM

Xbox 720, perhaps going to be released around the holiday season of 2013. Ps4, still not officially announced. When these new consoles hit stores, what do you think the fate of PC gaming will be? Developers are already starting to favor the consoles due to high sales, and that's with VERY old hardware! Think about how much more they might favor consoles with 1 year old hardware! It makes me quite concerned honesty. Supposedly, the 720 will only have a 6670 or something, so PCs will still be more powerful (depending, of course), and upgradeable, but will developers leave PC out?

What are your thoughts?

tl;dr: With the next gen consoles' release, what will the fate of PC gaming be?

More about : gen consoles

August 16, 2012 7:44:18 PM

It will not change. PC will always be a pinnacle of gaming, and will always have the best graphics and gaming experience.
m
0
l
August 16, 2012 7:59:44 PM

PC will always be top (as stated) but console games will have very impressive graphics due to the optimisation going into the single architecture.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 16, 2012 8:17:45 PM

mi1ez said:
PC will always be top (as stated) but console games will have very impressive graphics due to the optimisation going into the single architecture.



not to mention


xbox 720 + ps4 is two different hardware configurations




pc = thousands of combinations


m
0
l
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 8:33:01 PM

I know that graphics wise, PC's will always be superior, but I am afraid that developers might really favor consoles due to one compelling reason: cash.
m
0
l
August 16, 2012 8:41:04 PM

Don't they already do that? :lol: 
m
0
l
August 16, 2012 8:50:09 PM

Quote:

tl;dr: With the next gen consoles' release, what will the fate of PC gaming be?


Probably the same thing that happened to PC's with the release of the current generation. Which is where we are at now.
m
0
l
August 16, 2012 8:54:07 PM

Quote:
Developers are already starting to favor the consoles due to high sales, and that's with VERY old hardware! Think about how much more they might favor consoles with 1 year old hardware! It makes me quite concerned honesty.


Your theory is flawed it would only be relevent if PC hardware never improved within a few months of a console's release PC's will have easily surpassed it. I think your concern is correct though

I think PC gaming will shrink further and we will see lesser and lesser quality console ports. Gaming PC's are already a niche market and I think the niche will shrink further many of the former benefits of PC gaming have largely vanished (better quality games, cheaper for same titles, etc) more people will settle for the ease and initial cheaper setup cost of consoles as the games become essentialy the same, the worse the ports get too the less reason to have an expensive gaming PC when the game you want may actually play better on a cheaper console. The "heydays" of PC gaming have definitley passed and are long buried (sadly).
m
0
l
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 10:25:39 PM

I have to agree with you, which is a real shame considering I have just build a PC with gaming in mind. :p  But hey, many people are also saying that this may be consoles' last generation due to tablet/mobile gaming, as well as the increase of sales in PC gaming in the last couple of years. I think that might just have been because of the dated consoles that are out now, and is likely to change when next gen consoles arrive. Oh well, I still think there will always be a fairly large PC community, especially with digital distribution (STEAM!!!), upgradable parts (Your PC can always be superior to consoles), and of course, mods. At least, I hope there always will be.


I think new consoles will be good for PC gaming in a way though, because there won't be prehistoric hardware developers have to work around in order to create a game. I can imagine what Bf3 could've been without consoles. With these new consoles, hopefully developers will have a little more freedom.
m
0
l
August 16, 2012 10:48:54 PM

Quote:

I think new consoles will be good for PC gaming in a way though, because there won't be prehistoric hardware developers have to work around in order to create a game. I can imagine what Bf3 could've been without consoles. With these new consoles, hopefully developers will have a little more freedom.


Explain to me what BF3 could have been without consoles? Since BF3 was developed PC-Primary and in turn shorthand ported to consoles where it suffered significantly by comparison to the PC version.

Maybe you should use an example of a game that was actually ported to PC and not vice versa.
m
0
l
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 11:26:16 PM

casualcolors said:
Explain to me what BF3 could have been without consoles? Since BF3 was developed PC-Primary and in turn shorthand ported to consoles where it suffered significantly by comparison to the PC version.

Maybe you should use an example of a game that was actually ported to PC and not vice versa.

Perhaps Bf3 was a bad example; but that's not really my point, and I'm sure you agree that consoles do hold back PC in certain titles.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 12:47:21 AM

GTA 4 is a classic example of a game made for the Xbox and badly ported to PC, it still played better on PC but had aload of problems and needs a much better PC than it should.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 1:08:29 AM

I like to think that if the market for PC games carries on shrinking, it will go back to those good old days of innovation. There will always be a market for PC games as long as a PC is still a viable system!
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 2:28:17 AM

jozincarnate said:
I like to think that if the market for PC games carries on shrinking, it will go back to those good old days of innovation. There will always be a market for PC games as long as a PC is still a viable system!


The biggest threat to PC gaming as we currently know it will be the potential for Cloud gaming in the future. At that point, all of your gaming will be limited by bandwidth and not hardware. Unfortunately, as technology expands for increasing the speed and stability of bandwidth, the service continues to come at a higher and higher premium with a wider profit margin being cut by the providers than ever before.

Consoles as they stand today don't have much bearing on the future of PC gaming. Cloud-enabled devices are what all of these threads should focus on.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 8:03:12 AM

They switched BF3's main platform focus from PC to console mid development so its half a half assed port
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 9:55:36 AM

casualcolors said:
The biggest threat to PC gaming as we currently know it will be the potential for Cloud gaming in the future. At that point, all of your gaming will be limited by bandwidth and not hardware. Unfortunately, as technology expands for increasing the speed and stability of bandwidth, the service continues to come at a higher and higher premium with a wider profit margin being cut by the providers than ever before.

Consoles as they stand today don't have much bearing on the future of PC gaming. Cloud-enabled devices are what all of these threads should focus on.


There is absolutely no way for cloud gaming for at least 10 years. To have 1080p lossless video (which you'd want for gaming), you'd need 2.8 GB/s internet speed. That's pretty much impossible today.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 7:32:42 PM

wr6133 said:
They switched BF3's main platform focus from PC to console mid development so its half a half assed port


More accurately they polished off every facet of the game with regard to PC and spent another chunk of development time trying to get it to work appropriately on consoles. There wasn't anything about the game on PC that was diminished or impacted by the existence of a console copy of the game. Don't be melodramatic.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 7:33:25 PM

Sunius said:
There is absolutely no way for cloud gaming for at least 10 years. To have 1080p lossless video (which you'd want for gaming), you'd need 2.8 GB/s internet speed. That's pretty much impossible today.


I'm aware. But at least it's a relevant conversation as opposed to wondering if maybe THIS generation of consoles will kill PC gaming (which has been the discussion for the last 2 tiers of consoles, and wasn't interesting even then).
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 7:42:12 PM

casualcolors said:
More accurately they polished off every facet of the game with regard to PC and spent another chunk of development time trying to get it to work appropriately on consoles. There wasn't anything about the game on PC that was diminished or impacted by the existence of a console copy of the game. Don't be melodramatic.


No more melodrama than your statement is conjecture (and I'm a fan of the game but saying they polished off every facet.... come on do you work for EA? It still has Day 1 bugs).

It is if not a poor port then an example of how the PC can be let down by console minded game design. Look at the maps, the small size (perfect for console player counts), dead empty space around and the way they are tightly packed and clustered, compare that too BF2 or even BF Vietnam maps, it shows the PC game suffered due to the console. I can stil play OP Flaming Dart from BF-Vietnam to this day I seriously doubt any of the BF3 maps will give me that longevity.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 11:13:57 PM

wr6133 said:
No more melodrama than your statement is conjecture (and I'm a fan of the game but saying they polished off every facet.... come on do you work for EA? It still has Day 1 bugs).

It is if not a poor port then an example of how the PC can be let down by console minded game design. Look at the maps, the small size (perfect for console player counts), dead empty space around and the way they are tightly packed and clustered, compare that too BF2 or even BF Vietnam maps, it shows the PC game suffered due to the console. I can stil play OP Flaming Dart from BF-Vietnam to this day I seriously doubt any of the BF3 maps will give me that longevity.


Might watch what you consider conjecture when the lofty claim of a diversion on development priority belongs to you.

I hate to break it to you, but the maps are smaller (barring the maps that are of roughly the same size as past Battlefield maps, of which there are a few but we'll suspend that reality for your sake) because people enjoy the smaller maps where vehicles don't completely dominate. If you need any indication of this you can look at BFBC2 where Heavy Metal is largely relegated to new pilots in training, while all of the urban maps are extensively played even still.

As far as which game will give you the most longevity, that's a matter of your own taste, and not the responsibility of myself or any development team. I appreciate how much you enjoy BF:V for instance, but the question isn't whether you play but rather, does anyone else? The answer is roughly no. I haven't seen more than a handful of matches at a time in years and years. QQ for you but that hardly makes me an EA representative nor does it impart some problem on any member of the BF community aside from yourself in this case.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 8:07:45 AM

The claim of diversion is fact DICE themselves publicly admitted it before the game even released so maybe research before you dismiss.

The maps may be large but utilised area is not take Firestorm as an example close to 50% of the map is unused desert area, Kharg again a big % of the map unused sea, even Caspian has a large area wasted. What would have happened if these areas had been built up as a usable combat areas? It wouldnt have worked on consoles with their smaller player count.

I guess you dont actually own BF:V as I just opened it up now and the server browser had plenty of active serves in it. Screaming QQ at me shows immaturity I didnt want an arguement here but a healthy discussion would have been nice, as far as the BF community I am far from alone in my views visit any BF forum to see that.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 9:01:43 AM

To answer the OP with my opinion.

I would consider the monitor size, speed and resolution to be a factor in whether PC gaming will die or not.

I think someone mentioned the new consoles would have a 6670 and would produce great graphics, which it would, using a TV or monitor at 1080p even.

BUT

Someone correct me if im wrong, that wouldn't be able to push a 120Hz 27" 2560 x 1400 IPS at 6ms with high details above 30 FPS.

You would need something like the latest graphics cards, 670,680,690, or 7970 or some kind of crossfire, SLI configuration.

So while the PC gaming market will stay a niche market, I don't think its in any more danger than it was before, people that want the best and are prepared to pay for it, will always have the latest and greatest and, hopefully, consoles will never be able to keep up with the rate at which PC hardware and software to some extend advances.


IMO

m
0
l
August 18, 2012 1:17:34 PM

wr6133 said:
The claim of diversion is fact DICE themselves publicly admitted it before the game even released so maybe research before you dismiss.

The maps may be large but utilised area is not take Firestorm as an example close to 50% of the map is unused desert area, Kharg again a big % of the map unused sea, even Caspian has a large area wasted. What would have happened if these areas had been built up as a usable combat areas? It wouldnt have worked on consoles with their smaller player count.

I guess you dont actually own BF:V as I just opened it up now and the server browser had plenty of active serves in it. Screaming QQ at me shows immaturity I didnt want an arguement here but a healthy discussion would have been nice, as far as the BF community I am far from alone in my views visit any BF forum to see that.


I have BF:V in my desk. Let's be honest almost no one plays it anymore. Literally fewer people than BFBC2:V which is sadly a ghost town itself.

Bear in mind as well that BF:V as an example is a game with maps with tons of "wasted" space as you put it. It's not the result of consolization. It's the result of trying to make a remotely believable map.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 4:25:38 PM

Sorry but you have now really stopped making sense. What would be unbelievable about spreading the flags out on say firestorm..... ever seen an oil refinery?They are BIG so building that map out along the desert wouldnt be "unbelievable" and would have suited 64 man PC games fine, it would not though have suited smaller console games... we got gimped maps for consoles maybe we agree to disagree here
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 6:03:52 PM

wr6133 said:
Sorry but you have now really stopped making sense. What would be unbelievable about spreading the flags out on say firestorm..... ever seen an oil refinery?They are BIG so building that map out along the desert wouldnt be "unbelievable" and would have suited 64 man PC games fine, it would not though have suited smaller console games... we got gimped maps for consoles maybe we agree to disagree here


We'll have to agree to disagree, since you're intent on focusing on the one map layout that demonstrates your point, while ignoring the other large maps that are in fact spread out.
m
0
l
August 21, 2012 4:09:13 AM

I presume it will stay the same as it is now, where consoles fight over their exclusives and PC gaming remains better despite the usual shitty ports we get. Probably will see COD 50 by the time they come out...I pretty much only game on PC now, but I'd REALLY like to see some new IP's in gaming all around. All the 4+ sequels is getting really old.
m
0
l