Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about PC gaming vs. consoles

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 14, 2008 5:55:24 PM

I'm just wondering when will average gaming pc's (eg. currently c2d 6600, 2gb ram, geforce 8600gt/radeon x2600) will be faster tnan ps3, xbox 360, such that game developers pay a little more atention to pc games until next gen consoles (2011?).

I beleive ps3, despite the fact of having only support for shaders equivalent to those in dx 9.0c, can produce images as beautiful as the fastest of the fastest pc thanks to its octa core cell core processor (pc gaming punisher processor).
March 14, 2008 6:04:14 PM

The end of this year will see 256-bit midrange cards on par with the 9600GT but for half the price... well, that's what I'm expecting to see anyway.


512MB Graphics - 256bit @ £70
4GB Ram is available at a low price too.... around £60

500GB HDD @ £55 .... CPU @ £100 (E6750 / E8300)

I think I'd rather pay that little more and have a machine that can adequately do EVERYTHING, over a console where games cost a fortune and it's only true advantage is BluRay (which drives for the PC are falling in price weekly).

So, by the end of this year I expect a sub £500 machine will outpace a PS3 and offer extra capabilities (maybe not taking into account my Avatar)

a c 147 U Graphics card
March 14, 2008 6:09:50 PM

With those specs you won't be liking your gaming experience. I've hooked my Pc up to my 1080P 42" lcd at the native resolution and COD4 looks flippin amazing.

What you described is not an average gaming PC. a 6600 is not a c2d it is a c2q. And the video cards listed are not gaming cards, they are more for HTPC's, video playback, standard video apps. Not games, stick with an 8800 series nvidia or 3800 servies ATI for examples. Or the last gen game cards.

Personally I think it is preference between who likes console, vs PC games. Younger and older crowds go for consoles alot because they don't want to or can't mess with the PC aspect of things. Most Gamers also form a hobby out of PC upgrading/building/overclocking/etc.

I personally like FPS games and can't stand them on a console. The lack of control frustrates me. Mouse and keyboard rule over the contoller. I enjoy the racing, sidescroll, and fighting games on console.
Related resources
March 14, 2008 6:28:21 PM

I could spent $800 on a computer right now and have a much better machine than a PS3 could ever be.. and saying the PS3 can match quality with a high-end rig is crazy..
a b U Graphics card
March 14, 2008 6:29:16 PM

Well, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. A console is basically a finely tuned graphics card. Any above average computer could wallop a poor console in processing and graphics power, however it takes more work to get PCs to work at their top. Another thing you aptly pointed out was that some companies don't put much effort into their PC games or write them poorly so they run slow (ie, Crysis). In reality, PCs had passed consoles before the new consoles had even been released.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 14, 2008 6:30:43 PM

I agree with jay on every thing he said and i also think the op is very close to trolling. :non: 
The question could seem by some to be an attempt to get Pro pc people to bite,as its worded very badly.
Im not going to say its intentional. hey I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.:) 
Mactronix
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 14, 2008 7:14:08 PM

I'm waiting for the day PC people can play against PS3 and xbox people online on the same game. I wonder if we would have the advantage? haha. And I don't mean paying for freaking Xbox LIVE! crap either.
March 14, 2008 7:20:12 PM

to correct jay2tall on some things

pc gamers will destroy console gamers on nearly every game if they were to play online together

the 6600 the op is probably referring to is a CORE2DUO e6600 (most likely)


towards the op:
console gaming doesn't compare to pc gaming right now
it might in the future because consoles are moving closer and closer to being a full blown computer
PC gaming looks 10^10 better than console gaming
i've played all systems and currently own a better than average PC and the consoles dont compare to crysis at 1920x1200 very high settings with all nvidia controls all the way up.
March 14, 2008 8:30:18 PM

Why bash console gaming?

The real question is why these computer hardware companies continue to release new technologies and ultra-buff hardware just so developers can only scratch the surface of the hardware's actual capabilities before the next money-sucking piece of **** waste of time video card hits the market.

PC Video processors are clearly more powerful then that of the PS3's or Xbox 360's, but at least if you buy a game for one of those systems you KNOW it's going to play smoothly because it has been designed to use as many capabilities as the hardware can offer.

Don't get me wrong I have always been a PC gamer and fan, but I'm also not a **** moron and I realize that all of this ridiculously expensive hardware will likely not even be fully realized or utilized in the games I intend to play. Thus, I don't expect it to.

As mentioned by someone up above, it's like comparing Apples and Oranges. This bullshit troll attempt of a thread got me all riled up.

Ahh well...
March 15, 2008 1:26:25 AM

I've seen a video of Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 gameplay and it looks beautiful. No driving game on PC looks that good at the moment.

However no shooter on the consoles looks as good as Crysis at Very High Settings...........
March 15, 2008 1:29:26 AM

crusoe74 said:
I've seen a video of Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 gameplay and it looks beautiful. No driving game on PC looks that good at the moment.

However no shooter on the consoles looks as good as Crysis at Very High Settings...........


Play the ps3 on a 20" monitor with keyboard and mouse, and you will see how far the rabbit hole goes....

a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2008 1:32:31 AM

Is there even a driving game for PC? One that is native to the PC, those ripped off of consoles are always horrible.
March 15, 2008 1:33:37 AM

then u will be asked to pick a red pill or a blue pill...
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 15, 2008 1:34:15 AM

raptorxt said:
to correct jay2tall on some things

the 6600 the op is probably referring to is a CORE2DUO e6600 (most likely)

Oh yeah I forgot about those. I have not hear many of these words spoken of an e6600 in many ith time. Only thee q6600 ith spoken from thou tongues.
March 15, 2008 2:22:59 AM

TrackMania United is PC only. If you like arcade-style racing games, get it! As far as the console V. PC debate goes, I'd much rather spend $800 on a decent gaming system than $300+ on a console and double for the games. My computer is my TV, stereo, gaming system, programming dev system, etc. Well worth the extra money, IMO.
March 15, 2008 3:00:52 AM

roco_nights said:
I'm just wondering when will average gaming pc's (eg. currently c2d 6600, 2gb ram, geforce 8600gt/radeon x2600) will be faster tnan ps3, xbox 360, such that game developers pay a little more atention to pc games until next gen consoles (2011?).

I beleive ps3, despite the fact of having only support for shaders equivalent to those in dx 9.0c, can produce images as beautiful as the fastest of the fastest pc thanks to its octa core cell core processor (pc gaming punisher processor).


That PC is also better than the PS3 and 360.

BTW, just so you know, the PS3 is almost like 2 Intel Quad cores clocked at 0.5GHz, in term of relative power. However, thanks to things like core specialization, optimization to only one set of parts, and not-running-a-normal-OS, consoles can look slightly better their inferior hardware suggests.
March 15, 2008 11:21:50 PM

Plus when you build a computer it also has great programs like calculator, Notepad, Wordpad, and Paint. Those by itself make the Pc worth it. [:kentuckyranger:1] :lol:  [:kentuckyranger:1] :lol:  [:kentuckyranger:1] :heink: 


:hello: 
March 15, 2008 11:38:57 PM

Orion1024 said:
TrackMania United is PC only. If you like arcade-style racing games, get it! As far as the console V. PC debate goes, I'd much rather spend $800 on a decent gaming system than $300+ on a console and double for the games. My computer is my TV, stereo, gaming system, programming dev system, etc. Well worth the extra money, IMO.


dittox2:) 
March 15, 2008 11:57:38 PM

I think the reason everyone on this forum is so anti-console is because they're afraid of what appears to be the downfall of PC gaming. Piracy is such an issue these days, and the majority of developers simply don't care about the PC the way they use to now that their profit margins are in danger. Epic has sold an estimated 5 million copies of Gears of War on the Xbox360, numbers they would never dream of on the PC.
March 16, 2008 12:26:20 AM

crusoe74 said:
I've seen a video of Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 gameplay and it looks beautiful. No driving game on PC looks that good at the moment.

However no shooter on the consoles looks as good as Crysis at Very High Settings...........

No PC looks as good as Crysis very high settings either lol
March 16, 2008 12:33:19 AM

Heyyou27 said:
I think the reason everyone on this forum is so anti-console is because they're afraid of what appears to be the downfall of PC gaming. Piracy is such an issue these days, and the majority of developers simply don't care about the PC the way they use to now that their profit margins are in danger. Epic has sold an estimated 5 million copies of Gears of War on the Xbox360, numbers they would never dream of on the PC.


perhaps, some people think they can outsmart me, I say maybe...

maybe...

I have yet to see one that can outsmart bullet...

cry some more!

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
March 16, 2008 12:52:36 AM

Consoles have HIGHLY optimized code for their games, so they run beautifully at locked framerates to give a good gameplay experience. Its cheaper and all the hardware is exactly the same, so no need for figuring it out for quads when it will work on 360's tri core. Cept when they port games to ps3 and they play like crap due to lack of time to code correctly. But PC's raw power is MUCH more powerful than a console, and always will be. But until PC game companys can optimize code for EVERY graphics card, processor and mobo and such. You will almost never get a perfect experience for the price on a pc. I own a wii, and a q6600 PC, so dont flame me sucka's. Lol
March 16, 2008 12:54:45 AM

Hmm, I can't fully bash console gaming. I mean, comparing graphics on a PS3 or 360 to a high end PC isn't exactly fair, when most high end PCs that could do that are at least twice the cost. In fact, back at the time those consoles came out, it would have been even higher of a cost. The difference, PC components can be upgraded, and pushed to the next level quicker than companies can bring out a new console.

Consider it like this. The 8800 series first premiered right around the same time as the PS3. But it was expensive as all hell (cost as much as a PS3.) So, let's look at a high-end PC that was already capable at the time. Take an X6800 processor, 2 GBs of DDR2 800, a 590 Ultra motherboard, and two 7900 GTXs in SLI. (or a 975 Chipset and two 1950 XTXs in Crossfire). Being limited to Windows XP, the main comparison would be COD4. Now, play that on console and PC in 720p or near resolution, and the PC would win due to higher AA/AF. Play it on 1080p or near resolution, and the console would win, because those older cards couldn't handle all the highest settings and higher AA/AF at the resolution.

Basically, in comparison, a console being compared to a high-end PC made near the launch of the console, and playing highly graphical games, the console wins. However, taking the tech that comes out a bit later, and the PC would win hands down.
March 16, 2008 2:15:37 AM

Grand Turismo 5...
I can only imagine what that would look like if it where developed for the PC, makes my mouth water.
Sure, it will never happen. But I can dream can't I? Right? :( 
March 16, 2008 2:53:10 AM

Darkness Flame said:
Hmm, I can't fully bash console gaming. I mean, comparing graphics on a PS3 or 360 to a high end PC isn't exactly fair, when most high end PCs that could do that are at least twice the cost. In fact, back at the time those consoles came out, it would have been even higher of a cost. The difference, PC components can be upgraded, and pushed to the next level quicker than companies can bring out a new console.

Consider it like this. The 8800 series first premiered right around the same time as the PS3. But it was expensive as all hell (cost as much as a PS3.) So, let's look at a high-end PC that was already capable at the time. Take an X6800 processor, 2 GBs of DDR2 800, a 590 Ultra motherboard, and two 7900 GTXs in SLI. (or a 975 Chipset and two 1950 XTXs in Crossfire). Being limited to Windows XP, the main comparison would be COD4. Now, play that on console and PC in 720p or near resolution, and the PC would win due to higher AA/AF. Play it on 1080p or near resolution, and the console would win, because those older cards couldn't handle all the highest settings and higher AA/AF at the resolution.

Basically, in comparison, a console being compared to a high-end PC made near the launch of the console, and playing highly graphical games, the console wins. However, taking the tech that comes out a bit later, and the PC would win hands down.


Woah dude, wrong wrong wrong. Fact of the matter is, 360 renders in 720p and upscales to 1080p. In the case of COD4, it renders in 600p then upscales (aka stretch) to 1080p. Any midrange PC could do 720p during the 360's release. You have things backwards. The 360 only has good graphics at low resolutions.
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2008 3:03:47 AM

Yeah, X1950XTX could easily handle COD4 600P with max details 4xaa/xaf. Isn't the 360 just running 600p 2xaa and whatever on the af in COD4?

March 16, 2008 3:56:57 AM

Lol, the only comparisson anyone can honestly give here would be the game itself, everything else is diffrent, from the coding, to the way its executed. consoles are nice for those who are into them, pcs are nice for those who are also into them. BUT... in 5 years i can upgrade my pc, and still get great game play and graphics , in 5 years, youll be looking at the game and wishing for a new console to hit the market. But comparing them as far as performance and visual looks is asinine. The games are handled in 2 totally seperate ways, about the only thing they have in common is both were written on a computer.. lol
March 16, 2008 4:13:55 AM

The Xbox360 runs a modified x1900.

The PS3 runs a pretty much stock 7800GTX.

My PC has three 8800GTXs in tri-SLI.

I have a 360, and have CoD4 on both. Its far and away better on the PC.
March 16, 2008 4:41:50 AM

At its launch, Microsoft lost around $150 per console. So the 360 had about $550 worth of hardware in it. Obviously, even at that time you could purchase a superior PC.

Game developers defiantly do NOT pay more attention to consoles because the have "superior" graphics. They pay attention to them because they are more profitable. If you look at the sales for last years flagship games for each of the consoles and PC you will find that consoles have far more sales. This is because of two possible reasons. 1) More people like consoles or 2) More people pirate PC games. My guess is that it is because of a combination of those two.
March 16, 2008 5:03:19 AM

Forgot one thing there zyberwoof, its also more expensive to make a pc game, because of added content, drivers, etc. While a console only has to conform to one standard, and they know what the limits are there already, pc games on the other hand require a bit of fortune telling, you have to guess where your harware is going to be in 2 to 3 years, thats about the average time it take to make a good pc game.
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2008 5:53:14 AM

Im hoping Wii does extremely well, and maybe a comeback from Atari for console. The more the merrier, that way itd be harder and harder for the game makers to write allll that code for alll those consoles heheh and maybe theyll start looking at the PC like it once did
March 16, 2008 7:36:19 AM

First off I want to say that I prefer gaming on my PC. If you have the money to spend, there is not a console on the market that can match the audio/visual quality of PC gaming on an up to date rig.

However, PC gaming is in a real slump right now, and people who do prefer gaming on the PC (and are willing to pay for their games instead of pirate them) are rapidly becoming an extreme minority. Tom's has made a few articles on the subject, I won't link to them because I am posting from a very slow internet connection in Iraq. For examples of what I am posting about, check the sales figures for any recent cross platform game. Console sales for the same game will typically be many times that of the sales for PC systems.

Quote:
Game developers defiantly do NOT pay more attention to consoles because the have "superior" graphics. They pay attention to them because they are more profitable


I recently picked up a ps3, (shopped around for the older 60gb version for hardware backwards compatibility) not for any kind of graphics superiority, but just for developer preference. Consoles today have a much larger library of recent games for exactly the reason you stated; developement of console games is more profitable.

Quote:
Consoles have HIGHLY optimized code for their games, so they run beautifully at locked framerates to give a good gameplay experience. Its cheaper and all the hardware is exactly the same, so no need for figuring it out for quads when it will work on 360's tri core. Cept when they port games to ps3 and they play like crap due to lack of time to code correctly. But PC's raw power is MUCH more powerful than a console, and always will be. But until PC game companys can optimize code for EVERY graphics card, processor and mobo and such. You will almost never get a perfect experience for the price on a pc. I own a wii, and a q6600 PC, so dont flame me sucka's. Lol


I noticed that a few of the games do not run at "locked frame rates" Most run fine, but some had framerate problems. In fact, in order to play the newest splinter cell game without horrible choppy framerates I had to turn the output resolution of my ps3 to 480p. The graphics quality at that res was far from stunning, but the gameplay was excellent. I should also say that only one of the six ps3 games that I have will play at 1080p. The rest output 720p, I assume because the framerate would suffer too much at full HDTV resolution.

In short, anyone in the know about hardware and graphics knows that a PC's hardware will provide a better gameplay experience even in poorly coded games simply due to technological superiority. Most other opinions are a result of ignorance and marketing hype.

Console gaming is not without benefits though, such as a much larger library of games and a better price point (much better for those who alread own an appropriate HDTV). I only see this trend getting stronger in the future, as more people look to consoles for gaming solutions, particularly as HDTVs see more market penetration. I believe developers will also turn to consoles for most of the games they create, because they are very much more aware of the recent sales trends than we are. I think a lot of people will also be viewing the PS3 in particular as a solution for high-def movie viewing now that HD-DVD has gone under.

Take it easy guys, and thanks for not making this thread a flamethrower.
Pete
March 16, 2008 8:27:46 AM

Consoles have promised backwards compatibility (PS3 & XBOX 360) and failed!! :fou:  That was the main reason for giving up on consoles, what am I supposed to do start stacking all my consoles up like a high rise? How about the HD-DVD for the Xbox360 add-on, HD-DVD is dead, dead, dead! :lol: 

Yeah like I'm going to by a console without backwards compatibility, what an investment! :lol:  If you think game makers won't do that release now and patch up later (Ubisoft the poster child for that) after its released, think again!

Console as an investment for playing future games on new hardware = a joke! :lol: 

Able to play your old PS2 games on PS3 = Very sad! :( 

Using a handheld controller = a big joke! :ouch: 

How about Microsofts Xbox360 ring of death issue = a huge joke! :lol:  :lol: 
March 16, 2008 8:42:19 AM

34% growth last quarter in consoles to something like 1.3 billion. PC gaming's not growing anywhere near that, if at all.

PC gaming will suck if it ends up being just a bunch of emulators running console code. Capabilities don't matter when it comes to game developer profitability.
March 16, 2008 9:14:12 AM

I'm pretty sure the OP meant to ask when a standard mid range computer be able to beat the consoles with gaming. He used an e6600 and 8600gt as an example for the midrange right now. He was just wondering when the midrange will be better than the consoles.

Which I really don't know the answer too. I'd say probably when the mid range of the next generation comes out. Whenever you can get 8800gt performance for about $100. Not exactly sure, but that seems about right....
March 16, 2008 9:25:05 AM

yadge said:
I'm pretty sure the OP meant to ask when a standard mid range computer be able to beat the consoles with gaming. He used an e6600 and 8600gt as an example for the midrange right now. He was just wondering when the midrange will be better than the consoles.

Which I really don't know the answer too. I'd say probably when the mid range of the next generation comes out. Whenever you can get 8800gt performance for about $100. Not exactly sure, but that seems about right....


Well the PS3 uses a 7800GTX with low resolution (720P or 1080i) and uses little AA or AF filtering, most AA is done in software. DirectX 10.1 is here to stay and I believe PC gaming will always be here to see whats possible and there are many new games to chose from along with games that I have missed.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 16, 2008 10:22:36 AM


Couple of things struck me while reading through this from where i left it last night.
Firstly anyone who thinks piracy isn't just as rife for console games as it is for PC games is misleading themselves. I have seen these people going around bars and have co-workers who have a list from "a friend" :whistle: 
Who can get anything from the latest PC/Console game to your grans favourite old film for X amount each or 5 for the price of 4 etc.
Secondly people who compare Consoles to the PC tend (and this is just my opinion from what i have observed reading several posts on the subject) to be just looking at the visuals. Most don't seem to consider the game play, with a Console the interface with other characters can be disappointing. Like a fight scene where you have to hit certain buttons in sequence to win. Is it just me or is that a bit insulting, Chimps can copy a sequence of lights(I'm not dissing chimps before anyone starts). :p 
Also as far as PC gaming goes people need to learn how to optimise what they have. Yes it takes time and patience but that's what the whole PC experience is about isn't it ?
If you want out of the box flawless performance on every game you play then get a Console. If you have the time and want the feeling of achievement after spending half an hour to an hour optimising your setup to run a game flawlessly and still look as good or better than a console then get a PC.
Mactronix
March 16, 2008 10:27:40 AM

mactronix said:
Couple of things struck me while reading through this from where i left it last night.
Firstly anyone who thinks piracy isn't just as rife for console games as it is for PC games is misleading themselves. I have seen these people going around bars and have co-workers who have a list from "a friend" :whistle: 
Who can get anything from the latest PC/Console game to your grans favourite old film for X amount each or 5 for the price of 4 etc.
Secondly people who compare Consoles to the PC tend (and this is just my opinion from what i have observed reading several posts on the subject) to be just looking at the visuals. Most don't seem to consider the game play, with a Console the interface with other characters can be disappointing. Like a fight scene where you have to hit certain buttons in sequence to win. Is it just me or is that a bit insulting, Chimps can copy a sequence of lights(I'm not dissing chimps before anyone starts). :p 
Also as far as PC gaming goes people need to learn how to optimise what they have. Yes it takes time and patience but that's what the whole PC experience is about isn't it ?
If you want out of the box flawless performance on every game you play then get a Console. If you have the time and want the feeling of achievement after spending half an hour to an hour optimising your setup to run a game flawlessly and still look as good or better than a console then get a PC.
Mactronix


What mactronix said, those stupid combo button lack of skill game really got my water boiling. :lol: 
March 16, 2008 1:06:27 PM

I look at it this way: I love PC hardware as a hobby, if someone makes me a game I'll buy it, if they only choose to make console games in the future, Microsoft will churn out more games with their dev. studio for the PC end to make sure their OS business doesn't die and they only become a toy maker like Apple.

Maybe Nvidia and AMD/ATI will invest in their own game studios too.

You see, it is cyclical. A new console is released, everyone fears the death of PC gaming. After the consoles get a tad long in the tooth, PC games garner more interest.

There will always be some sort of balance that we can benefit from as consumers of tech products, as "faster, better, cheaper" has been both industries way to keep sales of new products (i.e. survive) after the saturation point of current tech.

Once a tech product has saturated the market (sales are completely flat), they need a new benchmark to say you need something new, and that is ALWAYS where PC gaming fit in.

How fun was your Sega Genesis with all it's Blast Processing after you played Doom on a 486 and sound card? Damn, that game had some groovy tunes and you actually started to lift your head to try and look over objects even, that is how "new" that level of immersion was. Bye-bye sidescrollers...

Also, Moores Law will NEVER die. If it dies, or shows signs of weakness, the industry will do ANYTHING to keep it alive, or the industry dies. Count on it.

For example, I have an over 2 year PC with an Opteron 165 OC'd to 2.25ghz, 2GB Ram, and an 8800GTS 640. I am VERY happy that I can play Crysis and COD4 very well at 1440x900.

But, the technoslut in me is looking at the Q9450's. I mean, I am really starting to fall in numbers on Tom's CPU charts. I am starting to fall into "pocket calculator" territory faster than I expected.

So, it will be time to pony up another 2,000$ in the next year.

We have had the tools to generate AMAZING games, with fully immersive stories where you can't sleep until the last puzzle or clue is solved, since the days of the NES.

Where did all that epic content go exactly? I'd rather choose to pay for a good story, and a long, epic game, than piles of eye candy.

The only truly "great" games I played over the last couple of years is MGS1, 2, and 3. How sad is that??

As consumers, we should focus on rewarding developers on content, not graphics so much. This is where we are really screwing ourselves royal. I loved COD4, but it could have been, um... 4x longer?? Man, that was just one big Demo in my opionion, but at least I got it for 30$ on sale :) 
March 16, 2008 1:34:37 PM

blacksci said:
Forgot one thing there zyberwoof, its also more expensive to make a pc game, because of added content, drivers, etc. While a console only has to conform to one standard, and they know what the limits are there already, pc games on the other hand require a bit of fortune telling, you have to guess where your harware is going to be in 2 to 3 years, thats about the average time it take to make a good pc game.



Defiantly not... a console is more expensive... it's not all just the fact that "you already know the limits." The limits are very extreme. When writing a PC game you have a lot less code to worry about. If you run out of memory on a PC you'll get a little lag for a few seconds. If you run out of memory in a console, you just locked up and crashed the system. Consoles themselves have very little memory and in order processors. you have to account for exact process flow and control how each thread of the program and what order it goes into the processor itself. With there being very little memory resources you have to be very light on the data that you allow to be processed or saved at any given time. For a PC, you don't have any of these concerns. New technology is not a limitation for a PC game. You take whatever is the current technology when you start and that's what you build from. it's not like when new tech comes out on the PC it makes old software on the previous version obsolete. You can still play DX9 games on Vista... Hell, WOW is like DX7 or DX8.
March 16, 2008 2:07:47 PM

well when i was upgrading my pc all the time .. all the time i thought that this is the last after this i will buy a console becoz i m getting fedup abt the upgrade of pc parts becoz here in our country pc parts cost double than US. but hey i never bought a console becoz i fell in love with keyboard and mouse for real. actually its like i m afraid to change the track becoz i like pc..now for US ppls its like $70 motherboard(p35)+$160 core2duo 2.4 + $170 9600gt+$100 ram(4gb)..so a total of $500 upgrade and u will be way better than ps3 or xbox360.. other components really dont need to be upgraded u can pull out from ur old pc :-) while a ps3 will cost u $400.. very very close price to pc but very less powerfull than pc.. but i agree in one section that developer really need to code the games for pc in a good manner becoz lots of bad coded games right now in pc and thats why ppls getting more disappointed.. one game i just cant go without telling.. stranglehold.. one of the ugliest game i have seen.. made my pc bsod :-|
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2008 3:23:48 PM

edit:
March 16, 2008 3:28:08 PM

FrozenGpu said:
perhaps, some people think they can outsmart me, I say maybe...

maybe...

I have yet to see one that can outsmart bullet...

cry some more!

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 


LMAO!!!!
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2008 4:08:42 PM

In the past, because there wasnt all the eye candy on previous generations from console games, when the new generation came out, it was a deffinate WOW factor. Now that consoles are catching up in that respect, I think ppl will simply not except a non compatible backwards capability. Those old games will be too good to just chuck into history. Of course on a PC that really cant happen, but on a console, it can. I see it happening with the next gen for console, as itll look a lil better, but like weve all gone thru here with the coming of DX10, we were underwhelmed. Im thinking the same for consoles with the next gen, and those older games will have to be backwards compatible, which agaon, is going to create issues with development. Eye candy is an intrinsic feature of the future, and consoles will soon become affected by it
March 16, 2008 4:37:10 PM

PC hardware is far above that of the console.
Consoles are more popular because they are easy to use.

And, the ati 2600 and such cards are MID RANGE gaming cards. just because something's not the best doesn't mean it can't game.

Look at my machine. It's old as heck and runs COD4 flawlessly with the settings cranked up, and crysis with mid-low settings at around 35fps, ut3 turned up all the way flawlessly - all at 1280x1024 (kind of low, but it's the best screen i've got). I only run the CPU at 2.22GHz for playing games, the stated 2.4 is for video editing and rendering jobs and such. Those people with old athlon 64 machines have everything they need to game well, except maybe for the graphics card. Mine didn't cost all that much, and it chews through everything more than i thought it could. I just don't think most people realize what they have on their hands when they go on myspace and then turn to their xbox for a game.
I also find the mouse and keyboard much more of a natural gaming controller. those console controllers feel sluggish and large to me...it feels like the game is several steps behind my mind.
It doesn't take much of PC to play games at all - common misconception, i believe. my old radeon 9000's play battlefield 2 fine with the settings turned up. I can't wait to try COD4 or ut3 on them.

3 cards are for internet users
5/6 is for the common/light budget gamer
7/8+gt/gts is for the informed common gamer
8+gt/gtx/ultra or 9 is for the enthusiast

That's what i tell people searching for video cards.

Consoles have their place...people who just want to press the button and game. I think PC's will eventually turn out to be superior platforms...because consoles seem to be moving toward PC function every day. web, music, videos on your console...what's next? instant messaging? it'll just keep going.
March 16, 2008 5:12:24 PM

pc would turn out to be the only one best and the best if just developer really would feel about that.. but it seems like the best platform is going into the dark becoz of the slugish mind of developers..i can see a very dark part of pc :-( sad for me ... they just cant throw us like that.. can they ? :-( i m going to sue them for that :-) lawsuite ftw :-)
March 16, 2008 6:52:23 PM

Falken699 said:
I look at it this way: I love PC hardware as a hobby, if someone makes me a game I'll buy it, if they only choose to make console games in the future, Microsoft will churn out more games with their dev. studio for the PC end to make sure their OS business doesn't die and they only become a toy maker like Apple.

Maybe Nvidia and AMD/ATI will invest in their own game studios too.

You see, it is cyclical. A new console is released, everyone fears the death of PC gaming. After the consoles get a tad long in the tooth, PC games garner more interest.

There will always be some sort of balance that we can benefit from as consumers of tech products, as "faster, better, cheaper" has been both industries way to keep sales of new products (i.e. survive) after the saturation point of current tech.

Once a tech product has saturated the market (sales are completely flat), they need a new benchmark to say you need something new, and that is ALWAYS where PC gaming fit in.

How fun was your Sega Genesis with all it's Blast Processing after you played Doom on a 486 and sound card? Damn, that game had some groovy tunes and you actually started to lift your head to try and look over objects even, that is how "new" that level of immersion was. Bye-bye sidescrollers...

Also, Moores Law will NEVER die. If it dies, or shows signs of weakness, the industry will do ANYTHING to keep it alive, or the industry dies. Count on it.

For example, I have an over 2 year PC with an Opteron 165 OC'd to 2.25ghz, 2GB Ram, and an 8800GTS 640. I am VERY happy that I can play Crysis and COD4 very well at 1440x900.

But, the technoslut in me is looking at the Q9450's. I mean, I am really starting to fall in numbers on Tom's CPU charts. I am starting to fall into "pocket calculator" territory faster than I expected.

So, it will be time to pony up another 2,000$ in the next year.

We have had the tools to generate AMAZING games, with fully immersive stories where you can't sleep until the last puzzle or clue is solved, since the days of the NES.

Where did all that epic content go exactly? I'd rather choose to pay for a good story, and a long, epic game, than piles of eye candy.

The only truly "great" games I played over the last couple of years is MGS1, 2, and 3. How sad is that??

As consumers, we should focus on rewarding developers on content, not graphics so much. This is where we are really screwing ourselves royal. I loved COD4, but it could have been, um... 4x longer?? Man, that was just one big Demo in my opionion, but at least I got it for 30$ on sale :) 


excellent point about if other developers pull out, Microsoft will continue to make games for pc, and I'm 100% sure that soon ati/amd and nvidia will soon make their own studios for the sole purpose of designing games, people worry about PC games...meh don't worry it will still be here...

what is MSg1, 2, 3?

if u dont like classic FPS like doom or counterstrike...and what about classic RTS's like star craft and Command and conquer, sure westwood isn't making them anymore but it still is good [huge C&C fan from wayyyyyback]

personally I don't like RPG's..on the basis that all they do is suck your soul in, and never let go...besides look what happend to the stan, kyle, cartman, and kenny when they played WoW, they turned intonasty nasty people... :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 16, 2008 6:55:39 PM


@ reddozen
You seem to have it backwards.
I don't understand your reasoning that its easier to make a peg to fit several different holes than it is to make a peg for a standard hole. it doesnt matter what level the complexity is, the fact that its all uniform makes it so much easier and easier means cheaper. A console game will be coded specifically for the chip in the console and all end users will get the same end result for a given display.
Now a game for a pc has to be written to work on different processors and different GPU's, all of which can bring about various permutations. This leads to many more man hours coding and re-coding not to mention patches and fixes for issues that don't come to light until the end users come across them.
I just don't see how you came to your conclusion that a console game could possibly be more expensive to produce.
Your ram argument doesn't stand up.
You seem to have the same idea about PC's as the developers of assassins creed, IE that you can just dump the code on a PC and somehow it will magically sort it. Well it wont and that's why these badly coded ports from console games have such stupidly high system requirements.
!