Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why would anyone buy at Console 1280 x 720?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 28, 2007 4:46:34 AM

PC resolutions are at 2560 x 1600 and higher with multiple monitor support. So I gotta ask why anyone would think gaming on XBOX360 or PS3 is a better experience?

Do console lovers just not understand frame buffer limitations of these devices?? 1280 x 720 is it for consoles (both PS3 and XBOX360 are limited to this).

I mean PC gamers have NOT been running those limited resolutions for at least 5+ years!

Yes virginia, resolution IS very important. And that domain is entirely OWNED by the PC or Mac.

Rob.

More about : buy console 1280 720

July 28, 2007 5:35:03 AM

ps3 can render 1080p, 360 can only display 1080p(which is lame so w/e), although it will not match the gfx power of a pc, there are some interesting gmes that will not be on pc. 360 is worthless, because a lot of games will come to the pc and are better

mgs4, ff series, killzone2, etc. imo the only choices for gaming are a pc and a ps3 for console, although ds has more decent games either ds or psp make good handhelds

but thats just me, besides its not expensive to buy a good gaming computer and whoever says you need to upgrade every 6 months should dig a grave for themselves and whoever says it costs 2 grand for a good one needs to stop buying from gateway or dell or whatever crap store you can think of
July 29, 2007 5:03:50 PM

I think that the only console option is a Wii. We all know that PC gaming is better than 360 and PS3, but the Wii is a whole other experience. Everybody likes playing on the Wii for fun. It's not attempting to emulate the PC like the 360 and PS3 are doing, it's a entirely different category.
Related resources
July 30, 2007 10:07:23 AM

Yeah the PS3 can render games at 1920X1080 so as far as resolutions are concerned the consoles are more or less up to PC standards as no one is really going to buy a PC monitor with a higher resolution anyway (not for house hold use or gaming anyway).

But what is the issue here is that the consoles are going to be left behind real soon because graphics cards are soon going to be almost 3 times as fast as the console counterpart alone, and that’s before you add them on an array. Games are again like with the PS2 when that came out it was only a matter of a year before it was completely out classed and games had to be completely over hauled to run on the system.
July 31, 2007 3:03:15 PM

Venom- Resolution is important, but remember what consoles are plugged into, a TV (usually) either Standard Definition or High Definition. So the resolutions consoles use are broadcast-standards based.

There are a number of reasons why consoles will remain a viable gaming platform for quite a few years.
1. They are simple. Plug one into your TV, SD or HD and enjoy. No expertise required to build a decent rig.
2. Lots of software companies building games because of existing installed base and well defined life expectancy of console.
3. Innovation. Guitar Hero, the Wii controller. Does anyone think that we would have any of these with games only on the PC?
4. Console vendors are getting better at building online communities and environments.
5. Closed system. I don't have to worry about spyware, adware, and other crap that can infect a PC

I think we will continue to see PC game vendors push the envelope and demand more processing power in our CPUs and GPUs. Witness the current Supreme Commander and upcoming Crysis titles. You need a top-end system for normal playability. I think that PC owners always have an edge in performance over consoles because of the upgrade life cycle for most the enthusiast community.

Full Disclosure: I own a PS3 and a PSP, but my primary gaming rig is a quad core Q6600 overclocked to 3GHz with a 8800GTS video card.

Brent

August 2, 2007 4:56:26 PM

I will add:

Console are:
------------
* They are less expensive.
* Will last longer (PC = Hey guys! I got a new Video card! What??? Already outdated???)
* You can carry it easily.
* No game installation.

I own a good PC and a Xbox360.

I must say that some game like BF2142, a mouse and keyboard are mandatory! :) 

So, it two different world.

Allen
August 2, 2007 6:19:53 PM

hey moron I run my pc at 1280x768 and it is just fine. (It is 32" and I sit 3-4 feet away.) With hi res you have to sit close, and some people do not want to do that.
August 2, 2007 7:08:01 PM

also consoles are dedicated systems with no overhead, why do you think the DirectX system was developed? well it was done to bypass the overhead related to the OS. hell running xp has around 50 odd processes that tie up the CPU and other resources. also well, now that i'm in UNI it turns out that actually upgrading your rig every few months is pretty expensive..who knew? at least with a console as others have said, you dont need to upgrade.
also with console you only need to design for one system setup, not multiple hardware configurations, which can and does cause problems. thats a major reason that developers like consoles, there is often a very small to non existant team needed for support (what you think patches are developed with the game then released for kicks?).

having said that though i'm still bumed that FPS games on the PS3 dont allow keyboard/mouse control.

oh and one more thing, how much is that 2560 x 1600 monitor?

Quote:
besides its not expensive to buy a good gaming computer and whoever says you need to upgrade every 6 months should dig a grave for themselves and whoever says it costs 2 grand for a good one needs to stop buying from gateway or dell or whatever crap store you can think of


play a brand new game on a mid range gaming computer 6 months down the line, yea a PS3 will be able to do the same game, with equivilent to high detail but that computer wont. then try in 5 years with that same PC and compare it to the PS3, i would have to guess that the PC will pretty much fail on running it. oh and incase you decide to rant at me for making that stupid comparason, bare in mind that the PS3 is designed with a 10 year lifecycle, it proberly wont pan out as expected but i can be hopeful.
August 3, 2007 8:45:33 AM

burn-e86 said:
play a brand new game on a mid range gaming computer 6 months down the line, yea a PS3 will be able to do the same game, with equivilent to high detail but that computer wont. then try in 5 years with that same PC and compare it to the PS3, i would have to guess that the PC will pretty much fail on running it. oh and incase you decide to rant at me for making that stupid comparason, bare in mind that the PS3 is designed with a 10 year lifecycle, it proberly wont pan out as expected but i can be hopeful.
Your talking crap now...

How can you possibly conceive that a PC that runs games better than a PS3 now, will some how slow down and not run games faster/better in the future. You do know that to get the games to run on a PS3 five years down the road that they will be heavily cut down versions of the original right? You do also know that in five years time you will still be able to get the same game to run at a better image quality on that five year old PC…

Hell in 5 years we might have a PS3 emulator for the PC,... who knows anything can happen.
August 3, 2007 1:09:18 PM

well, actually considering that the PS3 uses a completely different programming language and CPU arcitecture (PPC rather then X86), which kinda means that there is a bit of untapped power. Hell look at the PS2 and Splinter Cell, What you say is true, that the PS2 version(s) are cut down on visuals, but they run the game. what game, released nowadays (and released on the PS2) will actually run on a 5 year old PC? that was the point that i was trying to get out. Yes the graphics wont be as good, that much is obvious, But you will be able to play the game.
oh and no in 5 years we wont have a PS3 emulator for the PC, it uses a PPC CPU, which really cant be emulated on PC. heck we're still having trouble emulating PS games
August 3, 2007 4:16:27 PM

burn-e86 said:
well, actually considering that the PS3 uses a completely different programming language and CPU arcitecture (PPC rather then X86), which kinda means that there is a bit of untapped power. Hell look at the PS2 and Splinter Cell, What you say is true, that the PS2 version(s) are cut down on visuals, but they run the game. what game, released nowadays (and released on the PS2) will actually run on a 5 year old PC? that was the point that i was trying to get out. Yes the graphics wont be as good, that much is obvious, But you will be able to play the game.
oh and no in 5 years we wont have a PS3 emulator for the PC, it uses a PPC CPU, which really cant be emulated on PC. heck we're still having trouble emulating PS games
5 Years ago we had the 9800Pro and the first 64Bit processors released for PC upgrades. Hell 5 years ago I had 2GB’s of memory running in my PC, so you are wrong a PC built 5 years ago could more than beat the PS2 it could in a way even give the 360 a run for it’s money, with the 9800Pro being good enough to play Oblivion.

Hell my PC which is coming up to 4 years since it’s last upgrade can crush the 360 when it comes to games, as I can play Oblivion on a like for like basis and get more frames per second and on top of that get better view distance. It’s still good for the latest need for speed games with everything being very playable.

Also you forget that PC’s we have nowadays have x64 architecture and games have not really been using that to its full extent yet with the first game to use it in any real way being Crysis. You really cant change how fast your hardware will go as the most you can normally squeeze out of hardware is an extra few frames per second. The good thing that consoles have going for them however is that game designers have a fixed platform they are able to work on to get the most out of it. But Unfortunately this only works for console only games as games designed for the PC and then ported for consoles will have ridiculous slow downs or features cut.

At the end of the day consoles do what they where made to, they play games. They are not the best but then again they are not the worst.
August 3, 2007 11:53:12 PM

Xbox 360 support 1280x1024. Wich is what I will game in, haven't bought a widescreen monitor yet. And if you want to game in widescreen you can do 1360x768.

And one thing you seem to be missing is the games diffrence. Because of the increased complexity and piracy on the PC side less and less games are being developed for the PC. You have maybe 10 high budget games for PC a year while on the console side you have 30 or something like that. And a greater variety of game types. It's been years since I even played a fighting game on PC and a long while since I played a good racing game.

Oh and I care more about gameplay then pretty grafics. I guess Im silly like that I want to have fun when I play a game. Not go "wooo pretty colours"..
August 4, 2007 7:26:04 AM

Quote:
5 Years ago we had the 9800Pro and the first 64Bit processors released for PC upgrades. Hell 5 years ago I had 2GB%u2019s of memory running in my PC, so you are wrong a PC built 5 years ago could more than beat the PS2 it could in a way even give the 360 a run for it%u2019s money, with the 9800Pro being good enough to play Oblivion.

Hell my PC which is coming up to 4 years since it%u2019s last upgrade can crush the 360 when it comes to games, as I can play Oblivion on a like for like basis and get more frames per second and on top of that get better view distance. It%u2019s still good for the latest need for speed games with everything being very playable.

Also you forget that PC%u2019s we have nowadays have x64 architecture and games have not really been using that to its full extent yet with the first game to use it in any real way being Crysis. You really cant change how fast your hardware will go as the most you can normally squeeze out of hardware is an extra few frames per second. The good thing that consoles have going for them however is that game designers have a fixed platform they are able to work on to get the most out of it. But Unfortunately this only works for console only games as games designed for the PC and then ported for consoles will have ridiculous slow downs or features cut.


again How much did that system cost back when you bought it? a 9800PRO 5 years ago was not a mid range card, it was one of the better cards you could get. 64Bit CPUs costed an arm and a leg. but a PS2 costed what? $250? something around that amount? yes you are right, a 64bit, 2Gb RAM, 9800PRO might be able to hold up quite well but How much would it Cost?!? i remember back in 2002, the PS2 had been out for over a year, or was it 2? anyway regardless cause a setup like yours would have costed well over $1000, not including any periphirals.

I do have to say though I have my serious doubts that your 4 year old machine was able to play Oblivion on a like for like for visuals considering that my 7900GT is hardly able to give me a decent framerate. I would guess that you are running either a 6 series Gforce or ATI equivent, either way below a 7 series which only came out 2 years ago (give or take a few months).

Also the 64bit arctecture is to do with the OS, Crysis would not run as a 64bit game on a 32bit OS just because the hardware is 64bit.
oh and another thing, the Xbox360 and PC are very similar in programming, which does mean that they can be ported in minimum time and effort, many features can also be ported over easily.
August 6, 2007 9:20:07 AM

What you fail to understand is that Consoles cost a lot of money… I paid £400 that’s $800 for my PS2. The PC upgrade from a GeForce 3 to a 9800Pro the 1700+ to a 3200+ and the motherboard change cost me £430 and that’s $860. The funny thing was back then the console only ran games at 720X576 while I was playing Max Payne and the likes at 1280X1024, I remember when I first got my GeForce 3 I was playing the first Max Payne at 1600X1280… that was about 6 or 7 years ago.

I don’t know how you are using your hardware on your PC but I have an X800 XT PE (lets keep up this pricing thing) that I paid £220 back before the 360 was even a thought in the publics head. I also had an A64 3500+ that I only paid £150 for and to top all that off I had 2GB’s of DDR400 that I carried over from my last system. So all in all that upgrade only cost me £380 and that’s 2 years before the release of the 360.

Now let me make one change from my last statement, the X800 runs Oblivion on a like for like basis with the exception of HDR, for that the PC uses bloom, which gives off a similar effect. But apart from this change the game plays in a similar visual fashion and looks stunning. As well as giving me better view distance and a smoother play as well as much shorter loading times. I tend to play the game at 1680X1050 though and cut down on the shadows and the AI distance, but the game is still playable in those settings.
August 6, 2007 6:50:25 PM

...i have HDR enabled, and my PS2 costed $4000HKD, around 333 quid, though this was for the region free version (official one; the 10000 model) which was around 1500 more expensive then the region locked models (15000, and 18000).
I have to say that living in england can skew the numbers abit. considering that my PS3 costed me 3980HKD plus 1 game, which works out at around 265 quid. I really dont think that you can argue that they are too expensive in comparason.
(the reason the 4000 is 333 is because 7 odd years ago the exchange rate was 12 or 13 to the pound, now its 15, before you start on my maths skills.)
August 7, 2007 9:18:18 AM

Lets keep to buying things in the country, the PS2 was £399 on release day in the UK
August 7, 2007 11:35:37 AM

well all I can say is that its good to be an expat, or an expat's son. Considering I fly back and forth atleast 2 to 3 times a year. Besides if we keep the buying to the UK thats not fair in any sense, since the consoles in the UK are so damn overpriced anyway. which is in fact agreeing with you, but since i get mine in HK or Japan (parallel inport) it is worth the money.
August 7, 2007 2:03:14 PM

But if you buy like any other punter does in rip-off Britain then it is not. But lets get back to the original question. Why would anyone want to play games on a PC rather than a console? And in my travels through my thoughts I started thinking about the old PC parts I had and what they are doing right now. The answer is I have given my mum a PC and I have also given my sister a PC out of old parts that because they where gamer parts even the old GeForce3 is more than my mum will ever need if she would ever want it for light gaming (as if she would) and watching movies.

What happened to my PSX that I paid £300 or more for… it’s in the bin, what happened to my Xbox that cost me £290… it’s in the bin, what happened to my Dreamcast that cost me £220… it’s in the bin. And so on with every other console bar my PS2 and 360. PC’s may cost more than consoles but you will get a lot more use out of them and they will last you for decades, consoles will cost you a lot of money and will become useless within 6 years or so and are only good for one thing. Hell I think my Aunts still using my old GeForce2 MX in her PC (Couldn’t you get DOOM3 to play on them?).

Basically my view on consoles is that they’re great for a little lazy fun when your lying back on your couch but for anything more they are just useless. This is why for me they are just expensive luxuries that cost more than they are worth, especially if you have a PC in the first place.
August 7, 2007 8:03:25 PM

Don't let the hardware manufacturers get you involved in their system wars. There is no reason you can't have a PC and a console (let alone more than one).
!